PBS: American Masters- 'None Without Sin: The Story of Arthur Miller & Elia Kazan'

Source:PBS- Arthur Miller & Elia Kazan, being featured in this PBS documentary.

Source:The New Democrat

"A fascinating (and hard to come by) 2003 PBS documentary look at the relationship between playwright Arthur Miller and Director Elia Kazan, the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and its Red Baiting - and the defiant art the period inspired.

Written, produced and directed by Michael Epstein."

From PBS

Elia Kazan was looked down upon ( and I'm being nice ) because he was former Communist and member of Communist Party USA, who testified in 1952 in front of the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee, for outing other Communists and Socialists who worked in Hollywood. And because of this Kazan was able to continue his brilliant Hollywood career as a direct or, producer, and writer. And as a result his colleagues in Hollywood refused to honor his great works because the Socialist-Left in Hollywood saw him as a traitor. Even though no one will even attempt to argue that Elia Kazan wasn't a great writer, director, and producer.

So Elia Kazan had two feet kicking him in the rear during is career. One foot because the corporate establishment kicking him simply for being a Communist and kicking him simply because of his personal politics and beliefs. The other foot the Socialist-Left. Actors, directors, producers, writers, the employees in Hollywood, kicking Kazan because he came out as a Communist, which is like admitting to being a rapist or murderer, to the Fascist-Right in America.

We have a guaranteed right to free speech in America which of course covers politics but other aspects of what we think and what we have to say, with only a few exceptions dealing with libel, inciting violence, and harassment. ( Not offensive speech ) So unless you're working for foreign government to try to hurt the United States, or involved in terrorist activities to advance your politics, you have a right to believe what you believe. Even if it offends tight asses on the Far-Right who have their own limited view of what it means to be an American. Or tight asses on the Far-Left who believe anything that is critical about anyone who is not an Anglo-Saxon Protestant straight male, should be censored.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: there's nothing dangerous about one's political beliefs and thoughts. People have a right to believe what they believe. America is so strong as a liberal democracy that we tolerate people who believe America is some racist evil empire. Which is what Communists and perhaps Democratic Socialists even, tend to believe. And we can tolerate people who believe non-European-Americans and even non-Anglo-Saxon Protestants, are basically animals not deserving of the same constitutional rights as the English-Protestants who came to America in the 16 and 1700s. Doesn't mean fringe thinking in America shouldn't be looked down upon and people who act on those fringe beliefs through violence shouldn't be monitored and punished. But Americans shouldn't be denied access in America and be blacklisted simply because of their personal politics.

Inside Edition: Reverend Martin Luther King- 'I Have a Dream'

Source: Inside Edition- Dr. Martin L. King, delivering his I Have a Dream speech, in Washington, in 1963.

Source:The Daily View

"On Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, we remember the civil rights leader's most famous speech, and King's remarkable legacy. He was born on January 15, 1929, in Atlanta. He gave the "I Have a Dream" speech on Aug. 28, 1963 to 250,000 people who marched to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed a bill that created a federal holiday to honor King, celebrated on the third Monday in January."

From Inside Edition

One of the things I love about Dr. Martin L. King’s speeches is that there is never any need for a commentator or narrator for his speeches. He was so clear with how he spoke and always right to the point. There was no (pardon the word) bullshit with Dr. King. You always knew where he stood and what he believed.

So in that sense it’s probably a good thing for Dr. King and bad for everyone else in America who wasn’t a bigot that Martin King never got involved in American politics as a politician. Because he would always say what he believed because he was honest to his core. And would have driven his political staff crazy! People who are professional pols who believe their bosses can’t afford politically to be always be honest, if ever.

Having said all of that and to get to Dr. King’s speech. I believe it’s the greatest speech in American history at least ever given by a non-political and non-governmental official. He laid out in one speech what America should always be about and since the civil rights movement I believe America has been about what we should be about which is this beautiful idea of America being that place on a shining hill for the rest of the world to see and to admire. (To paraphrase Ronald Reagan)

Where all Americans regardless of complexion, regardless of race, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of gender, regardless of religion, regardless of who we were born to and the economic backgrounds of our parents, that all Americans can make it in America if they just do the work and make themselves the best and most productive people that they can be. Get a good education and put their skills to work.

A big reason why I’m a Liberal is because of Dr. King’s I Have a Dream speech. He wanted an America where his children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. I want an America where everyone’s children and where every American is judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin or any other physical attribute that they were born with that comes from being a member of a certain race, ethnicity, or gender.

Which should always be what America should be about which is why we should always object to identity politics when it comes from the Far-Left or from the Far-Right. Or from whatever ethnic or racial group in America. And instead just look at Americans as people and judge them by what they do and what they think. Not by how they were born.

Foundation Interviews: Betty Garrett- Discusses The Hollywood Blacklist

Source: Foundation Interviews- Actress Betty Garrett, being interviewed about The Hollywood Blacklist.

Source:The New Democrat

"Betty Garrett discusses the Hollywood Blacklist - Emmy TV Legends.

From Foundation Interviews

Betty Garrett saying in this interview that workers in Hollywood we're interested in the Communist Party (Communist Party USA) and not just interested but politically active, because the Communist Party back then were talking about issues like affordable housing, health care, civil and equal rights, what would be called progressive causes and that they were called a progressive organization. Hearing the words communist and progressive, to describe Communists, is ironic at best.

I don't doubt that Communists believe in affordable housing and that government has a big role in seeing that is available for everyone. Or that they believe in affordable health care and health insurance. Or that they believe in equal rights for everyone in the country. Keep in mind, the civil rights movement was just a baby back in the mid and late 1940s when the so-called Communists in Hollywood investigations were going on in Congress with the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee. Perhaps not even a baby and not even born yet.

Equal rights for all Americans and seeing that Non-European Americans had the same civil rights and constitution rights as English-Protestants in America, was not a mainstream issue. After all, Communists are Socialists when it comes to economic policy and today even there's still a lot of Marxism in the communist movement in America.

But, if Communists were to ever come to power in America (and it started snowing in Hell on the same day) most if not all of our civil liberties and constitutional rights would disappear. Most rights in America are individual rights. Free speech, the right to not be discriminated against under law based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion. The right to privacy, our property rights, equal justice under law. The right to a fair and speedy trial, etc.

Communists don't believe in individual rights and individualism in general. They believe everyone in society should be subjects of the state and that it's the job of the central state to see that everyone is taken care of and that the central government has to have not just broad but unlimited powers to see that everyone is taken care of in society, but to keep the regime protected and in power indefinitely. The Communists do have socialist leanings and policies when it comes to welfare rights and the general welfare, but it is a very regressive philosophy by in-large especially when it comes to civil liberties and individualism.

As far as the Hollywood Ten and the Communists in Hollywood investigations: Americans (even in Hollywood) have the same free speech rights as Americans who believe in individual freedom and limited government. Or Americans who believe Christian Theocracy and ethno and racial nationalism. Or Democratic Socialists, or actual Progressives, or people who don't believe in any form of government at all.

Americans have a guaranteed right to free speech in America because we are a constitutional liberal democracy with guaranteed individual rights under our Constitution. And therefor have the right to believe what they believe and speak out on what they believe and work for people who share their political beliefs. And shouldn't be punished simply because of their politics. Which is what happened in Hollywood to the Hollywood ten and with by their own Federal Government by being persecuted by Congress because of their political beliefs.

Michael Vermeylen: 'Hollywood Communists- Hollywood on Trial'

Source: Michael Vermeylen- Hollywood writer Dalton Trumbo.

Source:The New Democrat

"Combining familiar newsreel footage with freshly shot material, David Helpern's Hollywood on Trial is a documentary concerning the "communist witch-hunt" era. In the years following World War II, several ambitious Washington politicos were anxious to dissipate the last traces of Roosevelt's New Deal, and in so doing labelled virtually everything hinting of liberalism as communistic.

These cynical crusaders couldn't make the headlines if they merely concentrated on such "radicals" as college professors and pamphleteers, so they targeted the most public industry of all: Motion Pictures. That's why the House UnAmerican Activities Committee conducted one-sided "investigations" of the Hollywood Left, and that's why so many actors, writers and directors found themselves on the Blacklist that no producer would ever admit existed.

Most of Hollywood on Trial concerns itself with the misadventures of the "Hollywood Ten," a group of writers and directors who refused to answer the committee's questions and wound up in jail as a result. John Huston, himself briefly under scrutiny from the HUAC for being "unfriendly," narrates this surprisingly objective, multi-viewpointed film. ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi" 

From Michael Vermeylen

My whole problem and issue with the so-called Communists in Hollywood investigation that Congress investigated in the 1940s first in the House and later in the Senate in the 1950s, is that it was hypocritical and violated most of the individual rights that Americans love and cherish and that so-called Conservatives back then said they cherished as well which was our individualism, free expression, free speech, free assembly, the right for Americans to believe what they want and to practice their own politics as they please. Whether they were Far-Left Communists and Socialists that believed America was the real Evil Empire and Russia as misunderstood. Or Far-Right Neo-Confederate Nationalists who saw African-Americans and other non-Europeans as animals.

You had these Far-Right Republicans in the House of Representatives and Neo-Confederate Democrats especially, who saw even the belief in communism and people having communist beliefs as some threat to American and Western civilization, that even having Communists in America at all even as private citizens with no foreign government connections and people who just had communist beliefs, would somehow destroy America.

And saw Communist Americans who again only had those political beliefs as people who don't have the same constitutional and individual rights as people who believe African-Americans aren't real Americans and therefor underserving of the same rights as European-Americans. You literally had right-wing racists believing that Communists who weren't bigots, weren't real Americans and therefor should be put in jail simply for their political beliefs.

You have political correctness on the Far-Left and some of that comes from Communists or people with communist leanings at least who believe they know best how every American should think and what they should believe. And believe any humor and criticism of racial and ethnic, as well as religious minorities is bigoted and therefore should be censored even though law even if the humor and criticism is accurate.

But you also have political correctness on the Far-Right in America coming from the Christian-Right as well as Nationalist-Right or Alt-Right, who believe they the real Americans because of what they think and how they live and believe anyone who looks at the world differently are Un-American and therefor do not deserve the same rights as these supposed real Americans. And the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee was a big part of that.

The only Un-American thing about HUAC ( House Un-American Activities Committee) was the committee itself. They should've been investigating themselves for being Un-American. The House should have created another select committee to investigate the Un-American activities of UUAC.

Because in America we have a guaranteed right to free speech under the First Amendment. That cover the freedom to practice any religion or no religion at all. The right to believe what we want, to associate with who we want short of known criminals, and the right to say what we want short of falsely libeling people or harassing people, inciting violence. And the so-called HUAC committee violated most if not all of our First Amendment rights and should have never been put together.

PBS: NewsHour- Judy Woodruff Interviewing Richard N. Smith: Looking Back at The Life & Politics of Nelson Rockefeller

Source:PBS- Presidential historian Richard N. Smith's book, about Governor Nelson Rockefeller.

Source:The Daily View

"A politician who self-described as having a “Democrat heart with a Republican head,” Nelson Rockefeller would be something of a political anomaly today. Biographer Richard Norton Smith, author of “On His Own Terms,” joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what distinguished the four-time New York governor and former vice president."

From PBS NewsHour

Richard Smith nailed it when he told Judy Woodruff and she asked him about how  to describe Nelson Rockefeller’s politics with Smith saying that Nelson was a Progressive-Conservative. Which I know sounds like an Oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or hot ice, the Cleveland Browns NFL franchise. (Not to pick on Cleveland)

And I prefer the term Progressive Republican like a Teddy Roosevelt or a Newt Gingrich. Someone who believes in government action to create progress but who puts limits on government to doing only the things that government should be doing. Like helping people in need help themselves.

Nelson or Nellie wasn’t a hardcore Conservative or Classical Conservative, Conservative Libertarian. As Richard Smith said Nelson disagreed with Barry Goldwater who did almost by himself put conservative libertarianism on the map in American politics, on almost all the issues.

But Nelson was a Conservative similar to Teddy Roosevelt in the sense that he believed in conserving what worked well in America like our Constitution, diversity, and individualism, and yes our environment. But he also believed in using government to again create progress and make things better.

A true Conservative in a political sense believes in conserving. Which has nothing to do with bigotry, national defense, property rights, to use as examples. But someone who believes conserving what works well and what makes society strong.

And yes, Conservatives tend to believe in conserving those things that I just mentioned, but generally conservatism in a political sense is about conserving the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights.

Not using government to force people to live in a certain way because those are the religious and moral values of some faction of believers. Nelson Rockefeller was a Conservative in that sense. But he also believed government could play a limited but constructive role in seeing that progress was achieved and that society could be better.

Theodore Roosevelt: 'Let Us Remember'

Source: AZ Quotes- One of Theodore Roosevelt's best quotes.

Source:The Daily View 

"A quote from "Citizenship in a Republic" (speech, 1910) by Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. (1858-1919). Music & recitation by Charles Belfor. "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

From Charles Belfor

Source: Charles Belfor- Theodore Roosevelt, certainly was The Man in The Arena.

It seems to me from this Theodore Roosevelt quote that he was arguing for both a progressive income tax and national service. A progressive income tax where Americans are taxed based on their ability to pay taxes.

The more money you make an earn on your own, the more in taxes that you would pay. For people in poverty they would pay the less if any in income taxes and people in the middle would pay a moderate level of income taxes. Which is the income tax system that America has right now, if you exclude the tax deductions and benefits that benefit corporations and wealthy individuals greatly. While middle class Americans other then being able to deduct their home mortgage interest and their state sales taxes, as well the child tax credit, tend to pay the U.S. Government (or Uncle Sam) what they owe by law in taxes. I believe it's safe to say like it's also safe to say that it snows in Minnesota in January, that Teddy Roosevelt wouldn’t be a fan of the modern American income tax system.

And then you look at the TR quote where he’s saying that as much that has been given must, much will be expected in return. Again, I believe he’s arguing for progressive taxation there, but he’s also arguing for national service and public service.

That its a real privilege to live in and be born in America and we simply have the advantages that a lot of other people if not most people who are born and raised in other countries which is why we have the economic as well as personal freedom that we do, that we should be expected to give back to the country, because so much has been given to us. Not just in taxes but in public and national service to make the country a better place. Whether its military service, foreign service, law enforcement, becoming teachers, or volunteering for charities , that we should give back because so much as been given to us.

As strange as this might sound there is a lot of TR in the wealthiest and most successful of American families. The Bush Family has always believed in public service. The Roosevelt’s obviously, the Kennedy Family, the Rockefeller Family, the Carnegie Family, and many others. These great families believe that other Americans who didn’t grow up with the same advantages as they did and perhaps didn’t have any advantages at all, believe that the underprivileged deserve an hand up to help them have a better life in America.

And not just through public policy, but through private charity and other non-profit organizations that serve the needy in America. Which is also a major part of Theodore Roosevelt’s legacy.

BBC Newsnight: Emily Maitlis- Interviewing Kurt Anderson: 'On Donald Trump and Fantasyland'

Source: BBC News- Kurt Anderson, being interviewed by BBC News, in Washington.

Source:The New Democrat 

"When Donald Trump won the US presidential election in 2016, Kurt Anderson was halfway through a book that he would title Fantasyland. It put the birth of fake news and false claims into a wider historical context. Kurt Anderson argues America has long been a place where renegades and freaks came in search of freedom to create their own realities. Emily Maitlis spoke to him in Washington."

From BBC Newsnight

Donald Trump and Fantasyland? Donald Trump is Fantasyland! Donald Trump is the President of Fantasyland! The United Donald of Fantasyland is the country that he presides over where facts don't matter and even exist. "If Donald Trump says it, it must be true." According the citizens of Fantasyland which is a fairly big country. Roughly 60 million people give or take voted for Donald Trump for President in 2016. If there was an amusement park called Fantasyland, Donald Trump would run the place. Well, he would probably just own it and instead hire someone who knows what they're doing run the place for him instead.

About 46% of the vote, voted for Donald Trump for President. Not talking about Lebanon or some other country that might have an authoritarian government but is so small as well as poor that it doesn't represent much if any threat to even its neighbors, let alone people around the world.

Fantasyland is a country where everything that Donald Trump says especially about himself, of course is true. Because again we're talking about Fantasyland where everyday is a marijuana high. Where facts don't matter. If Donald Trump had to operate in the real world, take Planet Earth to use as an example, he would fail miserably because he would have to deal with truth all the time. Which is generally bad about him because lack basic human values: Like commonsense, maturity, character, decency, and unfortunately I could go on but I'll spare you.

Albert Einstein once said about the truth that: "whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." Donald Trump is a man who can't even admit the simplest mistakes that he's made in life. Like falling asleep one night on his phone when he was in the middle of tweeting something around 2AM. Or claiming that he had the largest crowd size ever for a presidential inauguration with the National Park Service, that was only in charge of the event contradicting the President of the United States hours later.

Donald Trump simply a man because of lack of knowledge as well as honesty, who mentally doesn't operate in the real world. Says and sees things about himself and others that simply aren't there. In some cases he's simply lying, which of course is not uncommon with politicians, but in other cases he simply doesn't know any better.

When you lose touch with reality or simply deny it and Donald Trump who is only the President of the United States unfortunately qualifies on both scores, you can't be trusted. Because you're dishonest and irresponsible. Anyone who trusts a dishonest person is asking to be screwed by that person: "I'm an idiot because I trust you, do your worst to me." And the same goes with an irresponsible man who sees pigs flying in the air, three-million Americans voting illegally with absolutely no evidence to back that up.

I don't enjoy saying these things about the President of the United States and have never been this harsh about any President including President Richard Nixon. But to quote Khaled Hosseini: "better to get hurt by the truth, than comforted with a lie." The only way people can self-improve is to first know where they're at fault. The only way Donald Trump could ever become an even decent President is to operate in the real world. And stop making things up and seeing things that simply don't exist.

Liberty Counsel: Newt Gingrich Q&A- 'Why Do You Admire Theodore Roosevelt?'

Source: Liberty Counsel- Newt Gingrch, talking about his Theodore Roosevelt Progressive politics, back in 2012.

Source:The Daily View

"Open Q&A Session with Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich at the Aloma Church in Winter Park FL. Hosted by Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel on Saturday January 28, 2012."

From Liberty Counsel

A lot of members of the Tea Party, sound like Libertarians on economic policy, even if they are Big Government Republicans when it comes to social policy and would like to outlaw a lot of personal activities including what people do in their own homes and privacy. Former Representative Michele Bachmann, former Governor Sarah Palin, Governor Scott Walker come to mind, Phyllis Schlafly from back in the day.

Newt Gingrich even though he has many things in common with the populist blue-collar wing of the Tea Party that now backs Donald Trump 100%, he's not a Big Government Republican when it comes to either economic or social policy. He doesn’t want government taxing and regulating private business’s to the point where they’re essentially public utilities that are owned by shareholders.

But Newt is not a Libertarian either or even a Conservative-Libertarian. He believes in a big strong national defense and strong law enforcement, as well as low taxation and regulation. But he does believe in limited regulation not to run business’s, but to protect consumers and workers from predators.

Theodore Roosevelt was a Progressive Republican and so is Newt Gingrich. Where they differ on the issues, is anyone’s guess. They both believe in a strong America both economically, but also militarily and believe America can be positive force working with our allies around the world. And they both believe that government has a limited role in helping people achieve success for themselves.

Neither one of them are Liberal and certainly in Teddy Roosevelt’s case, not a Conservative. But both believe in using a limited government to help build a better America by empowering people to take control of their own lives. And seeing that America is as strong and safe as possible. This is why they’re both Progressives and both Republicans.

James Michl: The O'Reilly Factor- Glenn Beck: Talking To Bill O'Reilly About Newt Gingrich

Source: James Michl- Bill O'Reilly, giving Glenn Beck, The O'Reilly Finger, talking about Newt Gingrich. LOL

Source:The New Democrat 

"Glenn Beck on the Factor Newt G. Progressive"

From James Michl

I just have a flat disagreement with Glenn Beck on what a Progressive is and also find myself on this weird planet if not universe, where I'm agreeing with Bill O'Reilly on anything. I wasn't sure I could agree with Bill O'Reilly about current weather in Miami or how many states are part of the United States, because Bill is wrong about so many things.

But O'Reilly is right about Newt Gingrich at least in the sense that what was a Progressive in the early 20th Century about being someone who is about progress and using government to help create that progress and what's supposed to pass as a Progressive today (like the Cleveland Browns trying to pass as an NFL franchise) , are two completely different things.

According to Glenn Beck a Progressive and a Socialist, are the same thing. Hell, why not add Communist and say being a Communist is the same thing as being a Progressive. Even though most of the Communist ideology is regressive with how authoritarian it is and all the rights and freedom that people would lose if Communists were to some how come into power even though democratic means.

Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive. Bernie Sanders, Socialist. The Progressive doesn't want a government dominated society where most if not all of our social benefits and economic security, is provided by government and financed through our taxes. The Democratic Socialist at least, doesn't want government completely in charge of society. But our individual freedom and personal income, would be much more limited if Democratic Socialists were to ever come to power.

Newt Gingrich is obviously not a Libertarian, or a Nationalist, has some things in common with the Christian-Right, but doesn't roll with them on all their policies. Not a Conservative-Libertarian either, but he's a Progressive in a conservative sense. Someone who believes in using government to create progress, but through conservative free market principles.

For example: instead of just having people on public assistance just stay there and give them some money, Newt would say that those people should be looking for and getting work, as well as education so they can get themselves a good job and no longer need public assistance at all. As a condition of receiving that taxpayer funded public assistance. With is very different from a Libertarian who says that government shouldn't be involved in public welfare at all. And a Socialist saying that government should guarantee a basic income for everyone with no conditions.

For perhaps the first time in my life I find myself in agreement with Bill O'Reilly on anything. I don't even drink alcohol, let alone use illegal narcotics but it feels like I'm on some high and seeing things that shouldn't be there. Like Donald Trump being President of the United States. Wait, that actually did happen.

But O'Reilly's idea of a Progressive is inline with Teddy Roosevelt's, as well as mine. That progressivism is about progress. That the first eight letters in the word progressive is actually progress. And that being a Socialist is about socialization and using government to solve most if not all the problems in the country. With Glenn Beck believing that Progressive is another word for Socialist. Someone who believes in big government. Even though a Socialist is lot more ideological than a Progressive would actually ever be.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'Monologue: Sweet Home Alabama'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- talking about Alabama Judge Roy Moore.

Source:The Daily Review

"Bill reacts to the latest sexual assault allegations against Judge Roy Moore and others in his Real Time monologue."

From Real Time With Bill Maher

I'm not from Alabama and have never even actually spent a day in Alabama, but I get two things out of this story: One, that this behavior (assuming Roy Moore is guilty) is actually normal and if Roy Moore wasn't running for the U.S. Senate, maybe it wouldn't have become news. I mean, you had Republican leaders in that state saying what Moore is accused of are gifts from God and natural acts. I'm paraphrasing, but thats pretty close.

That if Moore wasn't the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate that this story would have never come out. The women wouldn't have come out because no one in Alabama including the media there, would have taken them seriously, let alone bothered to look into the allegations. Once Roy Moore not just declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate and then won the GOP nomination, is when this story became a national story.

The Senate is part of Congress obviously and a Federal institution and not many people more powerful in the country than a U.S. Senator. And not many institutions covered more closely than Congress, because of how important it is. Which is why you had a Washington Post reporter covering an Alabama Senate race in Alabama and the women going to The Post to talk about their allegations. Now, if Roy Moore was running for State Senate in Alabama representing Gadsden, Alabama, then this story wouldn't be a big deal. Again, we wouldn't have heard from the women because they wouldn't have been taken seriously. And again, to go back to Alabama as a state: this behavior seems to at least be acceptable to the Christian-Right there. Which is more of a religious cult than anything else.

The other thing that I get from the Roy Moore story is that this is Alabama. Anyone left to wonder why Alabama is seen as a backwards, redneck, neanderthal, state that was in a statewide coma during most of the 20th Century and would only come out of their coma to prevent African-Americans from exercising their constitutional rights as American citizens. So of course a lot of Alabama is not aware of what has been going on in America in the last ten years or so, let alone the 20th Century, because they still believe America is in a pre-civil war area. And that women should be nothing more than servants to men. So why not teenage girls being servants to men and their sexual needs. At least this is the perception of Alabama and not just for Washington, or New York, or San Francisco, but Atlanta and a lot of the state of Georgia which is a neighbor of Alabama.

Andrew Kaczynski: Newt Gingrich- 'I'm a Theodore Roosevelt Republican'

Source: Andrew Kaczynski- Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich: being interviewed on CSPAN, in 2008.

Source:The Daily View

"Newt Gingrich, in footage from 2000-2009, talks about being a Theodore Roosevelt Republican. Follow me on Twitter for more great political videos."

From Andrew Kaczynski

This video is about the 2012 Republican presidential primaries when Newt Gingrich was doing well in December, 2011 and January, 2012 and even won South Carolina in January. And was a real threat to defeating the so-called Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney for the presidential nomination. Mitt only won 1-3 of the first three primaries which was New Hampshire which of course is in his backyard and represents his own progressive Northeastern brand of Republicanism. Which is ironic since the Romney Campaign went out of their way to label Newt Gingrich as a Progressive, because Mitt Romney up until he decided to run again for president in 2007 and then again in 2011, was essentially a Progressive Republican himself.

I would label Newt Gingrich’s politics as a Conservative Right-Progressive, who believes in using government to achieve progressive goals through conservative principles. Using government to reduce things like poverty, but through conservative policies. Things like requiring work and education for people who are on public assistance. So they can improve themselves while they’re on Welfare or Unemployment Insurance, living in Public Housing, so they no longer need those public benefits and can become self-sufficient. Conservatives wants fewer people in poverty and on public assistance as well, but instead of saying we’re just going to eliminate those programs, Newt’s approach was to instead using those programs effectively so people would no longer need them because now they can get themselves a good job.

Newt’s politics are conservative and believes in things like low taxes, low regulation, strong national defense, strong long enforcement, fiscal responsibility and not running high deficits and debt, but he also believes in limited regulations and needing at least some taxation so we can fund the things that government should do. Including an effective safety net for people who truly need it, but use it to help people become self-sufficient and no longer need public assistance at all. Instead of saying that government should do practically nothing other than national defense, homeland security, law enforcement, foreign affairs. Which is more of a libertarian approach to government.

College Humor: 'Visiting Home is Weird On Thanksgiving'

Source: College Humor- The one day where we get to see the people that spend the rest of the year not even talking too.

"Visiting Home Is Weird On Thanksgiving"

From College Humor

Source:The Daily View

To paraphrase the great Johnny Carson: "Thanksgiving is that one day a year that we spend visiting our relatives that we hate. And then discover why we don’t see them very often and just once a year." Hate, might be too strong of a word here. (Key word might be) Or at the very least worth debating if it's too strong of a word in this case. I don’t actually have any relatives that I hate (that I know of) and my family is relatively small even if you include both of my in laws.

Thanksgiving is that one day a year where we can be proud of the fact that 1/2 Americans are obese, because one of the major activities during Thanksgiving is of course not just eating, but seeing how much you can eat before you break the chair you’re sitting on or literally lose everything you’re eating. And not because the food is bad but because you overindulged. Perhaps the number one motivation for actually seeing those relatives that you spend 364 days a year pretending you don’t even know, because you know at least the food will be good and more importunely it will be free.

Not to make too much about Thanksgiving because it is literally that one day a year where we can celebrate eating, which just happens to be one of my favorite holidays. As well as little things like being thankful for what we have and thank our military personal for the great job they do protecting our country so we can celebrate holidays like Thanksgiving. But there reasons why all of us have relatives and even close relatives like siblings and even parents that we not only not see very often, but stay away from and not even communicate other than maybe email and its not just because of physical distance. Some of that distance is personal as well.

Relatives might be that only group of people where you have so much in common with those people physically and as far as DNA and everything else and yet you seem so different from them personally. And end up socializing more not just with your friends, but your coworkers and even clients, because personally you’re more in touch with those people, than you are with people who have the same face, or eyes, or hair, like your parents and siblings, or even grandparents. And its not because you’re a bad person or your relatives are bad people. Well, in most cases thats true, but because no one knows you better than your siblings and parents. And they probably know you better than anyone else.

Our relatives know all of our strengths and weakness and we know all of their strengths and weaknesses as well. We know each other so well and like the Americans that we are we tend to focus on the things about people that we don’t like even to the point that we try to change people that are close to us to make them more like us or more acceptable to us. And tend to forget about the things that we have in common with the people that we’re supposed to love like our relatives. And we end up driving each other crazy and go a year or years without seeing each other.

Thanksgiving gives us an opportunity every year to be thankful for what we have and not dwell on what we don’t have. And an opportunity to discover our relatives again and hopefully see why maybe we should get together more often in the future.

Andrew Kaczynski: Brian Lamb- Interviewing Newt Gingrich in 1999: 'Theodore Roosevelt-Robert La Follette Tradition'

Source:Andrew Kaczynski- Newt Gingrich, being interviewed by C-SPAN's Brian Lamb, in 1999.

Source:The Daily View

"Newt Gingrich, speaking to CSPAN's Brian Lamb in 1999 on his time as Speaker, when asked about his ethics violations investigation of other politicians coming back to haunt him, says he comes out of the "Theodore Roosevelt-LaFollette Progressive tradition of reform."

From Andrew Kaczynski

This might sound at least borderline crazy at least for hyper-partisans, on the Right who see Democrats as immoral criminals and terrorists, who all deserve to be locked up and hyper-partisans on the Left, who see all Republicans as nothing but ignorant fundamentalist neanderthal bigots, but there is such a thing as Progressive Republicans and reform republicanism, which is what Newt Gingrich has always represented in his 20 years in the House of Representatives and his post-Congressional and political activist career.

Again, progressivism is not socialism and is not even liberalism. And its the least ideological of all the political ideologies in America that it barely qualifies as an ideology. The definition of s Progressive in a political sense is someone who believes in progress and making things better and using a limited government to help create that progress. So a Progressive on the Right like a Newt Gingrich, is going to be different than a Progressive on the Left. Someone like a Teddy Roosevelt or a Sherrod Brown today is currently a U.S. Senator from Ohio.

Progressives right or left, are different from Conservatives, because Conservatives believe in conserving the status quo when it comes to government. And that current society and the way of life is already great and doesn’t need improvement. Progressives always believe things and society can be better. That things and life aren’t always good or bad, but they can always be improved. That progress can always be made.

So someone like a Newt Gingrich can be a defense hawk and believe in a strong national defense and law enforcement strong enough to protect the innocent from predators, believe in fiscal responsibility and that government shouldn’t run high deficits and debt, that taxes and regulations should be low for everybody. But that there should also be a safety net for people who truly need help in society, but to use that safety net to help improve people’s lives. Not just give  them cash in the short-term, but help them improve their lives so they no longer need public assistance in the future. Newt is one of architects of Welfare Reform that became known as Welfare to Work in the mid 1990s. If he was a hard-core Conservative-Libertarian, he wouldn’t believe that there should even be a government Welfare program or public assistance at all.

Being a Progressive is not about being pro-big government or anti-government all together. Or being for a big strong national defense, or almost no national defense at all. Or someone who believes in freedom, or believes in statism. Being a Progressive is about believing in progress and believing that government can serve a useful purpose in making things better for everyone in society. But progressivism is not very ideological at all in how that progress is achieved.