Yahoo - Trump moneyman’s shady history. So the Republican National Committee and the Trump for President organization have joined together for joint fundraising. This is pretty common, when someone gets their party's nomination they work with their parties national committee to coordinate their actions. Joint committee means that Trump and the RNC chose members of the committee, that is sort of what joint means. In fact during a dinner in Los Angeles, Trump said he was glad to be raising funds to help the party keep Hillary from being elected. That is an odd thing to say, isn't it? He is the nominee, why didn't he say he was thrilled to be raising money for his general campaign. Hmmmm.
Well, it turns out that one of the members on that committee is a man from Los Angeles who I have written about many times over the years, Mr. Elliot Broidy. Mr. Broidy sat on the pension boards for the City of Los Angeles and the state of California, he also pled guilty to felony charges over his bribing government officials in New York. In fact, one of the people who he bribed was the Comptroller for the State of New York. As for Mr. Broidy, I am on record for having called for him to be questioned regarding his actions on the pension boards of California and Los Angeles. I have dozens and dozens of posts calling the man a crook and they go back seven years. I am not afraid of either Mr. Broidy or CIM Group suing me because I never post what I cannot back up and always identify my sources and provide links to them. While I suspect both of them of more than I will write about at the moment, I will not make accusations I cannot document. This is the same reason that I will not post accusations that I have received regarding the death of Pastor Carol Daniels, for that my answer remains constant, if you have proof take it to the police not the Pimpernel. If either CIM or Mr. Broidy chose to sue me, I would get answers to my questions to them and they would settle with me out of court in my favor rather than answer them. I have studied them for seven years or so and know exactly who I would drag into depositions. What is the point of all this, I know a lot about Mr. Broidy; but, what I do not know is whether he is working for the RNC or the Vote Trump faction; but, I have an idea. I know that Mr. Broidy has worked fundraisers for Republicans for decades, in fact Mr. Broidy has worked for awhile on the Republican Jewish Coalition.
I bring this up because, well, surprise, the media is intentionally making false innuendos about Trump without backing it up. I want you to do a internet search for "Donald Trump" "Elliot Broidy", you will not find anything linking them in the past and don't forget, Broidy was busted in New York where Trump is big news. In fact, five of the 20 members of the coalition sat on the Republican Jewish Coalition, many of whom worked on those groups during the Bush administration. Here is an article from the Times of Israel - Five Jewish donors on joint GOP-Trump fundraising team. You see, Mr. Broidy has been a big Israel supporter and many of his companies investments were in Israel companies, in fact, he has said that he created one of the funds specifically to promote investment in Israel. The article from the Israeli press says that many American Jews are leery of Trump because he has not given 100% of his support to anything that Israel might do and wants Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians.
Now, here is what is amazing, if you search for Trump and Broidy, you will find dozens and dozens of articles saying that Broidy is Trump's "shady" moneyman. Firstly, Mr. Broidy is not "shady", he is a convicted criminal. Secondly, there is nobody who has written that Trump hired or chose Mr. Broidy or even if Broidy is on the committee representing the RNC or Trump, why not? If Trump and Broidy have a past, why not doesn't the media disclose it, I would. Here is another question, why are there more articles about Broidy working on this joint committee than there were outside of New York when he pled guilty to bribing the New York State Comptroller?
How many people are going to pick up on this fact? How many reading these articles about "Trump moneyman" are going to know anything about Mr. Broidy's history? How many are going to question the article or look at what it doesn't say, how it uses misdirection to imply things that are misleading? Look, the reality is that nobody cares about this article or the implications, nobody trusts the media when it comes to Trump. There is a thing called overplaying your hand and the media has done it; but, doesn't know what else to do.
Over the last couple of days there has been a lot of talk about how establishment Republicans are considering supporting the Libertarian candidate as a third party candidate so that Trump will not win. LOL. This is the dumbest idea I have read in a long time and lets face it, there have been many dumb ideas by the establishment to stop Trump that have failed miserably. If you are a liberal then you probably always believed Republicans are racists, so why are their "leaders" fighting Trump. Some say the Republicans created Trump; but, were only kidding. The Republican establishment is only concerned with tax breaks for the wealthy, they don't care about Americans, the middle class, illegal immigrants, gays, abortion or anything else, just their pocketbook and that fits in perfectly with the Libertarian PARTY, not the Libertarian philosophy. True middle class and working class Republicans will not vote for the Libertarian Party, not gonna happen. I should also point out that the vast majority of Republicans are more concerned about Hillary winning than believe a vote for a Libertarian Party candidate will stop her. That is just a fact. If you get confused, remember, 6 companies own 90% of all the media and all six are globalists, not American nationalists.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Trade and Education
Huffington Post - Targeting Trade and Trade Pacts for Job Losses Is Counterproductive in Presidential Campaigns. The Huffington Post is pretty liberal, though, seems to be more behind Hillary than Sanders. This writer claims that free trade agreements have been good for the United States because the trade deficit is offset by the increase in foreign investment in the United States. I want you to read that again and make sure you understand his argument.
What he has basically argued is that we lose in manufacturing; but, people who own the country are increasing their return by selling the country to foreign interests. So who paid for the loss of manufacturing? The middle class. And who benefited from the increase in asset sales, the .1%.
So yesterday was Memorial Day, a holiday to honor those who have fought for this country. Today, there were a number of movies about World War II on television. I watched a couple on Turner Classic Movies. I watched "The Cain Mutiny" and "Mr. Roberts". It reminded me of something, the wealthy got drafted during World War II also. By Vietnam, the wealthy were able to keep there kids in college and thereby avoid the draft, they found lots of ways to change the laws so that their kids didn't have to fight and risk their lives.
How many children of the people who run the financial industry are in Iraq, Afghanistan or the military at all? Do you think that globalists send their kids to join the military and fight for this country when they do not believe in nationalism? While much could be said about that, I want to talk about the effect it has. See, during World War II the wealthy fought alongside the poor and middle class, they made friends with people who had less and were risking their lives side by side with them. As a result of that war, America became the wealthiest nation in the world. Wealthy kids today only spend time with the middle or lower class when being served. They do not see themselves as having anything in common with the middle class or lower class because they don't know them on a personal level.
The one place where the young wealthy and middle class are treated almost like equals is in college; but, you are more likely to see people from foreign countries is in the more expensive colleges and you will be less likely to see middle class kids.
I came from a middle class family and my parents poured money into putting me through college. Law School cost them even more and I had to take out school loans. Upon graduating, it took me years to pay off those loans and I did, on time and early. My parents could not have done that today and I would have to had think long and hard before taking on the debt that it would cost today. I probably would have had over $150,000 dollars debt by todays standards. The equivalent of half of the cost of a house in Los Angeles today and I am being very conservative in my numbers. I don't know if I would have taken on that amount of debt.
Here is a question, if middle class and working class cannot afford and are not allowed into state run colleges, then why do we pay for them with our tax dollars? Why are we paying taxes for state run colleges and universities that take foreign students before American students because foreigners pay more?
Here is a thought, why not eliminate all funding for state Universities and use that money to give college vouchers to kids whose parents are middle or working class. Then are taxes will be used to educate our children and they will be free to pick which college to go to without cost being a problem? Isn't that the same logic that is used by the right to promote charter schools and vouchers for private school? It is; but, they will not come out in support of what I just said.
I forgot something, no college vouchers for anyone whose parents make over $300,000 a year, I think their parents don't need the rest of us to help pay for their kids college. Think about it.
What he has basically argued is that we lose in manufacturing; but, people who own the country are increasing their return by selling the country to foreign interests. So who paid for the loss of manufacturing? The middle class. And who benefited from the increase in asset sales, the .1%.
So yesterday was Memorial Day, a holiday to honor those who have fought for this country. Today, there were a number of movies about World War II on television. I watched a couple on Turner Classic Movies. I watched "The Cain Mutiny" and "Mr. Roberts". It reminded me of something, the wealthy got drafted during World War II also. By Vietnam, the wealthy were able to keep there kids in college and thereby avoid the draft, they found lots of ways to change the laws so that their kids didn't have to fight and risk their lives.
How many children of the people who run the financial industry are in Iraq, Afghanistan or the military at all? Do you think that globalists send their kids to join the military and fight for this country when they do not believe in nationalism? While much could be said about that, I want to talk about the effect it has. See, during World War II the wealthy fought alongside the poor and middle class, they made friends with people who had less and were risking their lives side by side with them. As a result of that war, America became the wealthiest nation in the world. Wealthy kids today only spend time with the middle or lower class when being served. They do not see themselves as having anything in common with the middle class or lower class because they don't know them on a personal level.
The one place where the young wealthy and middle class are treated almost like equals is in college; but, you are more likely to see people from foreign countries is in the more expensive colleges and you will be less likely to see middle class kids.
I came from a middle class family and my parents poured money into putting me through college. Law School cost them even more and I had to take out school loans. Upon graduating, it took me years to pay off those loans and I did, on time and early. My parents could not have done that today and I would have to had think long and hard before taking on the debt that it would cost today. I probably would have had over $150,000 dollars debt by todays standards. The equivalent of half of the cost of a house in Los Angeles today and I am being very conservative in my numbers. I don't know if I would have taken on that amount of debt.
Here is a question, if middle class and working class cannot afford and are not allowed into state run colleges, then why do we pay for them with our tax dollars? Why are we paying taxes for state run colleges and universities that take foreign students before American students because foreigners pay more?
Here is a thought, why not eliminate all funding for state Universities and use that money to give college vouchers to kids whose parents are middle or working class. Then are taxes will be used to educate our children and they will be free to pick which college to go to without cost being a problem? Isn't that the same logic that is used by the right to promote charter schools and vouchers for private school? It is; but, they will not come out in support of what I just said.
I forgot something, no college vouchers for anyone whose parents make over $300,000 a year, I think their parents don't need the rest of us to help pay for their kids college. Think about it.
Sunday, May 29, 2016
2016 Presidential Debates, Sanders, Trump and Clinton.
There have been 12 Republican Presidential debates this season and nine forums. I remember when you were lucky if you got any debates. There is NO requirement that people hold debates, it is a tactical decision and always has been. In fact, if it were not for the League of Women Voters, we would have had a lot fewer debates in the past 40 years; unfortunately, you don't hear about that organization too often anymore. It did a lot of good at examining issues from all sides.
Recently, Trump was asked if he would consider debating Sanders on the Jimmy Kimmel show. YouTube - Donald Trump is Willing to Debate Bernie Sanders. Watch the video, the statement that was made from Sanders began with the fact that Hillary Clinton had promised to debate Sanders; but, had backed out. Trump said he would consider it if a lot of money went to charity. Trump had previously asked a channel to pay around 10 million if they wanted him to go to the debate with the Republican candidates because he was bringing great ratings and they were making millions off of the debates.
Later Trump said that he would not debate Sanders because Sanders wasn't going to win the nomination and he saw no point. Trump had made it clear in his comment that if they could come to an agreement on the money and the charity, he would debate him; but, there is no evidence that they did come to any agreement or that anyone offered the money he had previously said he would require. Not Fox, CNN, CBS, ABC or NBC came out in public and offered to make the deal, not one. Since then the media has gone wild crying that Trump had said he would and then declined to debate Sanders. By the way, the Democrats have held nine debates. The Democratic debates have had half the viewership and were not shown during premium time slots. In fact, Sanders has complained that the DNC has intentionally had the debates at times when they were the least likely to be watched.
It is to Trumps advantage not to debate Sanders unless Sanders wins his party's nomination. If Trump debates Sanders, how does it help him win the Republican nomination? Sanders wants the debate because if he can best Trump, he might have a better chance against Hillary Clinton. Believe me, the last thing that Clinton wanted was a Sanders Trump debate, she hasn't even kept the agreement with Sanders to hold a debate this month and none is scheduled.
So, here is the question. Why isn't the media pushing Clinton to debate Sanders? Better yet, what prevents the three of them debating? It should be noted that it is also not to Trump's advantage to debate Hillary without Sanders in the debate. That would only increase her support at the expense of Sanders. Another way to put this is whoever Trump debated would have an advantage in the Democratic primaries.
Do you remember when Trump did not attend one of the Republican debates because they would not give their money to charity? That was big news with all the media asking if it would backfire on him, it did not, the ratings of the debate that he skipped were half that of prior debates. If "The Walking Dead" lost half it's viewership, it would be off the air. The Democratic debates have not scored as well as reruns. Love him or hate him; but, Trump makes ratings and revenue for the media go up.
Now, I want you to see how a mind like mine works on a problem like this. If I were Trump, I would wait until a Democratic nominee was finalized and then challenge them to a debate, immediately. If Clinton is the eventual nominee then I would say, "You refused to debate Sanders in May, will you refuse to debate me?" Her predictable response would be, "Well, you refused to debate him in May too" and the response to that is, "I never ran against him, you did." I the alternative, if she does debate Sanders this month, then Trump's first statement after Clinton wins the nomination should be, "You debated Sanders, do you have the integrity to debate me too". Here is the logic, by acting first, you push your opponent to respond and the slower the response,, the more you learn about them and the weaker is their preparedness. I have an equally complex series of scenarios for a Sander nomination. The point is that this is a chess game, chess is based on strategy and was the game of kings. It was used to train princes to think ahead, to plan to see moves ahead. Strategic thinking is a way of life, it is an approach to how you view the world. Trump is more strategic than Clinton or Sanders.
The truth is, the media and establishment are lying to themselves. Trump can beat Clinton, I am not sure if he can beat Sanders. Trump and Sanders supporters are the same people. Neither supports the establishment, neither believes the media and both are middle class and working class people who have been hurt by the changes in the country and our economy. At the beginning of this race I said I hoped it would be Trump versus Sanders. The establishment oligarchy wanted it to be Bush vs. Clinton, because either outcome meant they remained in control.
If the media cared about the Trump Sanders debate, all they have to do is publically announce that they are willing to pay $15 million to a charity that takes care of veterans. Trump could not then refuse. It is not a complicated thing to do; but, you will not see the media, not CNN, not Fox, not CBS, not NBC and not ABC offer to do that even though they will make a profit. The media does not want a Trump Sanders debate at the moment, as it does not help the one candidate that is still in the race and is owned by the globalists corporations that comprise the 6 companies that own over 90% of all the media.
Recently, Trump was asked if he would consider debating Sanders on the Jimmy Kimmel show. YouTube - Donald Trump is Willing to Debate Bernie Sanders. Watch the video, the statement that was made from Sanders began with the fact that Hillary Clinton had promised to debate Sanders; but, had backed out. Trump said he would consider it if a lot of money went to charity. Trump had previously asked a channel to pay around 10 million if they wanted him to go to the debate with the Republican candidates because he was bringing great ratings and they were making millions off of the debates.
Later Trump said that he would not debate Sanders because Sanders wasn't going to win the nomination and he saw no point. Trump had made it clear in his comment that if they could come to an agreement on the money and the charity, he would debate him; but, there is no evidence that they did come to any agreement or that anyone offered the money he had previously said he would require. Not Fox, CNN, CBS, ABC or NBC came out in public and offered to make the deal, not one. Since then the media has gone wild crying that Trump had said he would and then declined to debate Sanders. By the way, the Democrats have held nine debates. The Democratic debates have had half the viewership and were not shown during premium time slots. In fact, Sanders has complained that the DNC has intentionally had the debates at times when they were the least likely to be watched.
It is to Trumps advantage not to debate Sanders unless Sanders wins his party's nomination. If Trump debates Sanders, how does it help him win the Republican nomination? Sanders wants the debate because if he can best Trump, he might have a better chance against Hillary Clinton. Believe me, the last thing that Clinton wanted was a Sanders Trump debate, she hasn't even kept the agreement with Sanders to hold a debate this month and none is scheduled.
So, here is the question. Why isn't the media pushing Clinton to debate Sanders? Better yet, what prevents the three of them debating? It should be noted that it is also not to Trump's advantage to debate Hillary without Sanders in the debate. That would only increase her support at the expense of Sanders. Another way to put this is whoever Trump debated would have an advantage in the Democratic primaries.
Do you remember when Trump did not attend one of the Republican debates because they would not give their money to charity? That was big news with all the media asking if it would backfire on him, it did not, the ratings of the debate that he skipped were half that of prior debates. If "The Walking Dead" lost half it's viewership, it would be off the air. The Democratic debates have not scored as well as reruns. Love him or hate him; but, Trump makes ratings and revenue for the media go up.
Now, I want you to see how a mind like mine works on a problem like this. If I were Trump, I would wait until a Democratic nominee was finalized and then challenge them to a debate, immediately. If Clinton is the eventual nominee then I would say, "You refused to debate Sanders in May, will you refuse to debate me?" Her predictable response would be, "Well, you refused to debate him in May too" and the response to that is, "I never ran against him, you did." I the alternative, if she does debate Sanders this month, then Trump's first statement after Clinton wins the nomination should be, "You debated Sanders, do you have the integrity to debate me too". Here is the logic, by acting first, you push your opponent to respond and the slower the response,, the more you learn about them and the weaker is their preparedness. I have an equally complex series of scenarios for a Sander nomination. The point is that this is a chess game, chess is based on strategy and was the game of kings. It was used to train princes to think ahead, to plan to see moves ahead. Strategic thinking is a way of life, it is an approach to how you view the world. Trump is more strategic than Clinton or Sanders.
The truth is, the media and establishment are lying to themselves. Trump can beat Clinton, I am not sure if he can beat Sanders. Trump and Sanders supporters are the same people. Neither supports the establishment, neither believes the media and both are middle class and working class people who have been hurt by the changes in the country and our economy. At the beginning of this race I said I hoped it would be Trump versus Sanders. The establishment oligarchy wanted it to be Bush vs. Clinton, because either outcome meant they remained in control.
If the media cared about the Trump Sanders debate, all they have to do is publically announce that they are willing to pay $15 million to a charity that takes care of veterans. Trump could not then refuse. It is not a complicated thing to do; but, you will not see the media, not CNN, not Fox, not CBS, not NBC and not ABC offer to do that even though they will make a profit. The media does not want a Trump Sanders debate at the moment, as it does not help the one candidate that is still in the race and is owned by the globalists corporations that comprise the 6 companies that own over 90% of all the media.
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Failing Hands
I have arthritis in my hands for about 35 years. About 25 years ago my doctor predicted that I would need to have my knuckles replaced in ten years, he expected that my knuckles would need to be removed within the last 15 years, I have exceeded expectations. During that time my hands have continued to deteriorate; but, I have found that the pain has less and less meaning. It may be that the delay has caused some nerve damage, I cannot say. I chose to wait to have the operation and that was my choice.
The problem now is that my hands are now failing in worse ways. I have kept my hands busy by typing all of my own work and of course this blog also. I can still type; but, I find my hands seizing up in the last month. I thought it might just be the weather; but, it is getting worse. I am now faced with the question again of having my knuckles removed and replaced with plastic. I am quite sure the technology has improved in the last 25 years. My health provider has my history and x-rays of my hands, they documented the problem and would pay for the treatment. I can afford the time needed to heal as I am retired.
Let us consider the risks and rewards of having my knuckles replaced. A mistake might leave me unable to use my hands at all. Success would be no more constant pain and who knows, possibly even the ability to draw again or write legibly. There is another thing to consider, I don't want to have body parts that are not mine. My knuckles and I have been through a lot and they have allowed me to be an artist, a cabinet maker, a writer and fix plumbing. I respect my body, it has always done what I needed it to do.
I think I shall keep my knuckles unless the pain requires constant medication and I cannot use them at all. I have also refused to get laser eye surgery or use contact lenses. I feel no need to change myself at this time; but, I am willing to use items to assist me such as glasses. These things are personal choices. As for the blog, if I can no longer type, I will get a voice program that will type for me. Hope you all have a great weekend.
The problem now is that my hands are now failing in worse ways. I have kept my hands busy by typing all of my own work and of course this blog also. I can still type; but, I find my hands seizing up in the last month. I thought it might just be the weather; but, it is getting worse. I am now faced with the question again of having my knuckles removed and replaced with plastic. I am quite sure the technology has improved in the last 25 years. My health provider has my history and x-rays of my hands, they documented the problem and would pay for the treatment. I can afford the time needed to heal as I am retired.
Let us consider the risks and rewards of having my knuckles replaced. A mistake might leave me unable to use my hands at all. Success would be no more constant pain and who knows, possibly even the ability to draw again or write legibly. There is another thing to consider, I don't want to have body parts that are not mine. My knuckles and I have been through a lot and they have allowed me to be an artist, a cabinet maker, a writer and fix plumbing. I respect my body, it has always done what I needed it to do.
I think I shall keep my knuckles unless the pain requires constant medication and I cannot use them at all. I have also refused to get laser eye surgery or use contact lenses. I feel no need to change myself at this time; but, I am willing to use items to assist me such as glasses. These things are personal choices. As for the blog, if I can no longer type, I will get a voice program that will type for me. Hope you all have a great weekend.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
A Black Scarlett O'Hara? Is It a Good Idea?
This is not an important post, it is merely a responsive one. I read as much news as possible everyday, I post on only limited articles that I believe deserve a little more attention. I try to focus on what will effect your lives that is not be sufficiently discussed. This is not about any of that.
I was reading the news and watching videos over the past couple of months and it turns our that Daniel Craig (who did a great job) is quitting the James Bond movies. At first people asked whether or not we should have a black James Bond next and now they are asking if we should have a female James Bond. I have a minor reaction to this, it is stupid as an idea and sort of racist; but, in the scheme of things it is meaningless.
I find it odd that people who did "black face" (theater that used white people using black makeup to pretend to be black, very often it exaggerated the stereotypes of blacks that were held a long time ago in a negative way) are considered evil bigots; but, we want to make a black version of "The Odd Couple". I understand what people perceive one of the differences to be (that the black odd couple plays it as black); but, then where do the racial and gender divides cease mattering. Do you have to be white to play King Lear or Hamlet or Romeo? Could you do Romeo and Juliet with two men? I think you could; but, when would it add to the play? That is always the question for me. Shouldn't the selection of set and lights and actors be an attempt to help explain what the author meant? I think the only time it makes sense to play with those things is when you want to say something about the original story.
James Bond was a white man, the man who wrote the stories (Ian Fleming) was a white man who had been in the British intelligence agencies during world war II and while there were women spies, the person the books were based on was also a white man. I have no problem with saying that having John Wayne play a Mongolian was stupid and did not add anything to the story, so what does having a woman or a black person play a white British secret service agent add to the story. Remember I said the story?
The reason this came up has nothing to do with James Bond or Gone With the Wind, one of my daughters has now told me on two occasions that she things the all female Ghostbusters is a stupid idea and I agree. We both like the actresses; but, think that trying to make the movie a statement loses the point of the franchise. So, what if this film fails, will people blame it on the fact that it had an all female lead cast in a big film and they couldn't make bank? Hollywood is not about diversity, it is about money.
Why do I say this, you cannot complain about white males playing roles that were written for white males and then complain about white males playing black male roles. This is true in reverse, black males cannot complain about whites playing their roles if they play roles written for whites. Either any actor can play any role or no actor can play any role that was written for their race and gender. You sort of have to pick what you believe is right, I personally can live with either answer. I just don't care and am only pointing out the hypocrisy that exists with others regarding the answer.
Let's go back to the title of this post. I can imagine putting on "Gone With the Wind" where all the white roles are played by blacks and all the black roles are played by whites. I would do it to use the same metaphor that was used in Planet of the Apes. The story of the original Planet of the Apes was written during the time of great racial tensions in the United States. If all the humans had been black, the story would not be about what it was, it would have been about slavery rather than how blacks were being treated in the 1960s in America. When blacks and whites were finally allowed to marry a movie came out called, "Guess Whose Coming to Dinner" about a black family and a white family coming to grips with that fact that their children were going to marry. If it had been about two men, it would not have addressed the racial issue it was attempting to deal with.
Historical events and historical novels and plays are just that, historical. I think if we don't have something to add to that narrative, the intent of the author, then we should be true to it. I say this as a stage manager, not a writer. This is my artistic believe coming out, oh, and by the way, yes, I do believe the show must go on with all my heart. I was and am old school theater; but, I think my questions still have merit.
Here is what you should know, if Hollywood could put out a new black face comedy and make a billion dollars, they would make more of them. If an all female Ghostbusters makes a lot of money, expect and all female The Expendables and an all female A Team, anything that makes money becomes the trend. I remember when every other film was blackploitation films, Shaft and Super Fly were great; but, the films got worse and worse and then there were no roles for blacks. Watch what happens if the all females Ghostbusters loses lots of money, we won't see any more all female leads and that is a shame. The choice of actors should be based on who adds to the entertainment value whether it be comedy or tragedy or drama.
When you have a cast that is all black or white or male or female and it does not add to the point the writer was trying to make or add to it, then you are just exploiting. My daughter and I discussed the possibility of having one female as a ghostbuster and both agreed that would be okay, though, our choices are different. Personally, my choice for the ghostbusters would be Will Ferrell, Jennifer Lawrence (I know she is not a comedian; but, she is very funny and silly, she would do fine and probably love the role), Seth Rogen and Bruce Campbell. My choices are bizarre; but, interesting and they would not detract from the emotion these movies are meant to bring to the audience, they are not a distraction, just questionable. They do not have a political agenda, they are based on something else, story integrity and meaning. Be well.
I was reading the news and watching videos over the past couple of months and it turns our that Daniel Craig (who did a great job) is quitting the James Bond movies. At first people asked whether or not we should have a black James Bond next and now they are asking if we should have a female James Bond. I have a minor reaction to this, it is stupid as an idea and sort of racist; but, in the scheme of things it is meaningless.
I find it odd that people who did "black face" (theater that used white people using black makeup to pretend to be black, very often it exaggerated the stereotypes of blacks that were held a long time ago in a negative way) are considered evil bigots; but, we want to make a black version of "The Odd Couple". I understand what people perceive one of the differences to be (that the black odd couple plays it as black); but, then where do the racial and gender divides cease mattering. Do you have to be white to play King Lear or Hamlet or Romeo? Could you do Romeo and Juliet with two men? I think you could; but, when would it add to the play? That is always the question for me. Shouldn't the selection of set and lights and actors be an attempt to help explain what the author meant? I think the only time it makes sense to play with those things is when you want to say something about the original story.
James Bond was a white man, the man who wrote the stories (Ian Fleming) was a white man who had been in the British intelligence agencies during world war II and while there were women spies, the person the books were based on was also a white man. I have no problem with saying that having John Wayne play a Mongolian was stupid and did not add anything to the story, so what does having a woman or a black person play a white British secret service agent add to the story. Remember I said the story?
The reason this came up has nothing to do with James Bond or Gone With the Wind, one of my daughters has now told me on two occasions that she things the all female Ghostbusters is a stupid idea and I agree. We both like the actresses; but, think that trying to make the movie a statement loses the point of the franchise. So, what if this film fails, will people blame it on the fact that it had an all female lead cast in a big film and they couldn't make bank? Hollywood is not about diversity, it is about money.
Why do I say this, you cannot complain about white males playing roles that were written for white males and then complain about white males playing black male roles. This is true in reverse, black males cannot complain about whites playing their roles if they play roles written for whites. Either any actor can play any role or no actor can play any role that was written for their race and gender. You sort of have to pick what you believe is right, I personally can live with either answer. I just don't care and am only pointing out the hypocrisy that exists with others regarding the answer.
Let's go back to the title of this post. I can imagine putting on "Gone With the Wind" where all the white roles are played by blacks and all the black roles are played by whites. I would do it to use the same metaphor that was used in Planet of the Apes. The story of the original Planet of the Apes was written during the time of great racial tensions in the United States. If all the humans had been black, the story would not be about what it was, it would have been about slavery rather than how blacks were being treated in the 1960s in America. When blacks and whites were finally allowed to marry a movie came out called, "Guess Whose Coming to Dinner" about a black family and a white family coming to grips with that fact that their children were going to marry. If it had been about two men, it would not have addressed the racial issue it was attempting to deal with.
Historical events and historical novels and plays are just that, historical. I think if we don't have something to add to that narrative, the intent of the author, then we should be true to it. I say this as a stage manager, not a writer. This is my artistic believe coming out, oh, and by the way, yes, I do believe the show must go on with all my heart. I was and am old school theater; but, I think my questions still have merit.
Here is what you should know, if Hollywood could put out a new black face comedy and make a billion dollars, they would make more of them. If an all female Ghostbusters makes a lot of money, expect and all female The Expendables and an all female A Team, anything that makes money becomes the trend. I remember when every other film was blackploitation films, Shaft and Super Fly were great; but, the films got worse and worse and then there were no roles for blacks. Watch what happens if the all females Ghostbusters loses lots of money, we won't see any more all female leads and that is a shame. The choice of actors should be based on who adds to the entertainment value whether it be comedy or tragedy or drama.
When you have a cast that is all black or white or male or female and it does not add to the point the writer was trying to make or add to it, then you are just exploiting. My daughter and I discussed the possibility of having one female as a ghostbuster and both agreed that would be okay, though, our choices are different. Personally, my choice for the ghostbusters would be Will Ferrell, Jennifer Lawrence (I know she is not a comedian; but, she is very funny and silly, she would do fine and probably love the role), Seth Rogen and Bruce Campbell. My choices are bizarre; but, interesting and they would not detract from the emotion these movies are meant to bring to the audience, they are not a distraction, just questionable. They do not have a political agenda, they are based on something else, story integrity and meaning. Be well.
Monday, May 23, 2016
The Future for Europe is Muslim. What Does that Mean for the United States?
I am going to discuss the Islamification of Europe tonight. Now, that is not quite accurate, it is about the Arab Islamification of Europe, there is a difference. Firstly, and I always try and get people to understand this, there are more Asian Muslims than Arabs. For some reason Americans seem to think that all Muslims are Arab, they are not. We don't talk about Asian Muslims in Russia, China, India or Southeast Asia. They don't come up because we are not bombing their countries.
This post is not so much about their religion or what they believe as it is about what Europe will be like in the future and what that might mean for America. While some of what I am going to show today may shock you, get beyond the shock and head directly to acceptance that this is what is going to happen.
Lets start with the population of Europe. While I wrote about this a long time ago, I am going to focus more on the changing demographic and less on the simple fact. The simple fact is that the west no longer produces enough children to maintain our populations or cultures. YouTube - World Population and Muslim Demographics. If you watch the video you will learn the numbers, by 2050 most of Europe will be Muslim and of Arab decent. As I used to say in business, this is not a debate, it is just numbers. Right now it is estimated that 90% of the immigration to Europe is Muslim. You can think this is good, bad or be indifferent. If you don't recognize it though, you will fail to deal with the question of what it will mean for our relations with Europe and how it may affect geopolitical issues.
I was first exposed to this fact back in the early 1980s by one of my professors who was an expert on Russia and a consultant to them when they were still the Soviet Union. It is also one of the major reasons that the Soviet Union gave away Eastern Europe, they moved many of their own Muslims there first as if they had not, they would already be primarily Muslim and that did not set well with the Atheistic Communists.
So, what effects is this changing demographic having in Europe. Well lets start with this. YouTube - What Normal Muslims Think - And Europe Fails to Understand. The video is only about three minutes long; but, I would rather you watch it then read my description.
YouTube - 'Sharia Patrols' Harassing Citizens in London, Belgium, Sweden. This video is from a 60 Minutes episode.
YouTube - Secrets Of Britain s Sharia Councils BBC Documentary. This is from Panorama, a British investigative news show. It is about how their is an Islamic court system that follows Sharia law working in Britain.
YouTube - Panorama: British Schools Islamic Rules. I highly recommend you watch the whole video so that you will understand what Europe will look like in the next couple of decades and what the new Europeans are teaching their children.
Now if you bothered watching the videos you might be pretty shocked right now and I understand that, Americans do not pay enough attention to what goes on in the rest of the world. It really doesn't matter because the numbers are the numbers and this is where Europe is headed. When the majority of people in Europe are Muslims of Arab decent do not expect Europe to have the same culture or beliefs as it had in the past. If you need a historical comparison, think of when the Europeans took over the Americas and killed and controlled the native people. What we are seeing is the beginning of a cultural shift, of a new Europe. Oh, and by the way, the new Europe will have all it's laws written by the European Union, not individual nations. Currently the EU writes 50% of the laws for European nations.
So, what can we expect our relationship with England to be when it is 50% Muslim? You think we will continue to be best friends or that they will support us in protecting the right of Israel to exist? How will you feel knowing that Britain and France which have many nuclear bombs is Muslim of Arab decent.
Some may think what I am writing is alarmist because it alarms them. Alarmism is used to motivate people to avoid something they fear, this is unavoidable, it is just numbers and those don't get scared and these numbers will not change. Germans, Italians, French and English people are not going to start having 8 kids per family. Imagine Americans suddenly seeing the majority of families having 8 kids. Not going to happen.
So, what happens when Europe is Muslim of Arab decent? I say of Arab decent because Asian Muslims don't blow themselves up in Israel, England, Europe or America. People like me who are planners ask themselves these questions. We prepare contingency plans. The U.S. government actually had contingency plans for invading Canada. That is documented and the British and Canadians knew it, cause they had contingency plans for dealing with it. The British plan was to do nothing because they determined there was nothing they could do. We are in the same position, there is nothing we can do to stop the changes that are coming and to tell the truth, neither does Europe.
From a business standpoint, how should we prepare for the change in Europe? I do not care what restroom Caitlyn Jenner uses, I do not care that gay people live together as spouses, I do not believe I have the right to tell another person what to do with their body even if it means that they might have an abortion, I do not care about people eating pork (personally I love pork), I don't care if blacks and whites have sex or not, I do not care what you think about tattoos, I do not care what you think about body piercings, I do not care about things that are personal choices that do not harm anyone but themselves. I have a strong Libertarian streak; but, I am more complex than the simplicity of Libertarianism. I am a realist and a nationalist, I believe in communities attracting similar beliefs and people that are free to switch communities for ones where they feel in agreement. It is not the belief of a community; but, the tolerance of freedom of belief in the community that defines it for me.
I have been told all my life that the person I am most like in my family was my great grandfather, my grandmother even said that. He was very politically interested and had been in the very early Irish Republican Army (it had a different name at the time). I never met the man, I do know that he told my father that when the Arabs and Chinese united, it would be a whole new world and not a good one for America. At the time, we had total control over Arabia and China was a joke and exported nothing, My great grandfather saw something different coming and he was right. What happens when China is the only manufacturing country and Europe is Muslim?
A lot has been said about the Irish, we have been stereotyped in so many ways. When people meet me they often assume that I am Jewish because I am well educated and urban. I find it funny because my name is as Irish as they get. My look is similar to that of Bono, blue eyes, had jet black hair and my skin is as white as it gets. Having said all that, it is true that when my great grandfather was growing up in Ireland, they had a pub society where people would go to the pubs to socialize and talk politics. The Irish in my great grandfather's day were know to talk about race, religion and politics in the pubs. That is how he grew up and the conversations were deep and probing into these issues. I don't think he ever thought the Muslims would overtake Europe; but, he knew that their beliefs and the beliefs of the Chinese combining would be a problem for others. Okay, not their beliefs their interests. All nations act on their interests or commit suicide.
So here is the point of the post. How should we deal with Europe and the European Union when it is controlled by Muslims? Alarmists and Idiots ignore the numbers and facts to their own detriment. The people who insisted that Trump would not win the Republican primaries are idiots and he is now the presumptive nominee. He will be the nominee unless someone kills him and then we will see an ever stronger reaction by the forces supporting him and possibly civil disturbance.
We have time to figure out how we will deal with these things in the future, here is no extreme rush and as the years travel forward, the numbers will be understood by more and more people, I am just giving my readers a heads up and the questions they will be asking themselves later to them now. Have a great week.
This post is not so much about their religion or what they believe as it is about what Europe will be like in the future and what that might mean for America. While some of what I am going to show today may shock you, get beyond the shock and head directly to acceptance that this is what is going to happen.
Lets start with the population of Europe. While I wrote about this a long time ago, I am going to focus more on the changing demographic and less on the simple fact. The simple fact is that the west no longer produces enough children to maintain our populations or cultures. YouTube - World Population and Muslim Demographics. If you watch the video you will learn the numbers, by 2050 most of Europe will be Muslim and of Arab decent. As I used to say in business, this is not a debate, it is just numbers. Right now it is estimated that 90% of the immigration to Europe is Muslim. You can think this is good, bad or be indifferent. If you don't recognize it though, you will fail to deal with the question of what it will mean for our relations with Europe and how it may affect geopolitical issues.
I was first exposed to this fact back in the early 1980s by one of my professors who was an expert on Russia and a consultant to them when they were still the Soviet Union. It is also one of the major reasons that the Soviet Union gave away Eastern Europe, they moved many of their own Muslims there first as if they had not, they would already be primarily Muslim and that did not set well with the Atheistic Communists.
So, what effects is this changing demographic having in Europe. Well lets start with this. YouTube - What Normal Muslims Think - And Europe Fails to Understand. The video is only about three minutes long; but, I would rather you watch it then read my description.
YouTube - 'Sharia Patrols' Harassing Citizens in London, Belgium, Sweden. This video is from a 60 Minutes episode.
YouTube - Secrets Of Britain s Sharia Councils BBC Documentary. This is from Panorama, a British investigative news show. It is about how their is an Islamic court system that follows Sharia law working in Britain.
YouTube - Panorama: British Schools Islamic Rules. I highly recommend you watch the whole video so that you will understand what Europe will look like in the next couple of decades and what the new Europeans are teaching their children.
Now if you bothered watching the videos you might be pretty shocked right now and I understand that, Americans do not pay enough attention to what goes on in the rest of the world. It really doesn't matter because the numbers are the numbers and this is where Europe is headed. When the majority of people in Europe are Muslims of Arab decent do not expect Europe to have the same culture or beliefs as it had in the past. If you need a historical comparison, think of when the Europeans took over the Americas and killed and controlled the native people. What we are seeing is the beginning of a cultural shift, of a new Europe. Oh, and by the way, the new Europe will have all it's laws written by the European Union, not individual nations. Currently the EU writes 50% of the laws for European nations.
So, what can we expect our relationship with England to be when it is 50% Muslim? You think we will continue to be best friends or that they will support us in protecting the right of Israel to exist? How will you feel knowing that Britain and France which have many nuclear bombs is Muslim of Arab decent.
Some may think what I am writing is alarmist because it alarms them. Alarmism is used to motivate people to avoid something they fear, this is unavoidable, it is just numbers and those don't get scared and these numbers will not change. Germans, Italians, French and English people are not going to start having 8 kids per family. Imagine Americans suddenly seeing the majority of families having 8 kids. Not going to happen.
So, what happens when Europe is Muslim of Arab decent? I say of Arab decent because Asian Muslims don't blow themselves up in Israel, England, Europe or America. People like me who are planners ask themselves these questions. We prepare contingency plans. The U.S. government actually had contingency plans for invading Canada. That is documented and the British and Canadians knew it, cause they had contingency plans for dealing with it. The British plan was to do nothing because they determined there was nothing they could do. We are in the same position, there is nothing we can do to stop the changes that are coming and to tell the truth, neither does Europe.
From a business standpoint, how should we prepare for the change in Europe? I do not care what restroom Caitlyn Jenner uses, I do not care that gay people live together as spouses, I do not believe I have the right to tell another person what to do with their body even if it means that they might have an abortion, I do not care about people eating pork (personally I love pork), I don't care if blacks and whites have sex or not, I do not care what you think about tattoos, I do not care what you think about body piercings, I do not care about things that are personal choices that do not harm anyone but themselves. I have a strong Libertarian streak; but, I am more complex than the simplicity of Libertarianism. I am a realist and a nationalist, I believe in communities attracting similar beliefs and people that are free to switch communities for ones where they feel in agreement. It is not the belief of a community; but, the tolerance of freedom of belief in the community that defines it for me.
I have been told all my life that the person I am most like in my family was my great grandfather, my grandmother even said that. He was very politically interested and had been in the very early Irish Republican Army (it had a different name at the time). I never met the man, I do know that he told my father that when the Arabs and Chinese united, it would be a whole new world and not a good one for America. At the time, we had total control over Arabia and China was a joke and exported nothing, My great grandfather saw something different coming and he was right. What happens when China is the only manufacturing country and Europe is Muslim?
A lot has been said about the Irish, we have been stereotyped in so many ways. When people meet me they often assume that I am Jewish because I am well educated and urban. I find it funny because my name is as Irish as they get. My look is similar to that of Bono, blue eyes, had jet black hair and my skin is as white as it gets. Having said all that, it is true that when my great grandfather was growing up in Ireland, they had a pub society where people would go to the pubs to socialize and talk politics. The Irish in my great grandfather's day were know to talk about race, religion and politics in the pubs. That is how he grew up and the conversations were deep and probing into these issues. I don't think he ever thought the Muslims would overtake Europe; but, he knew that their beliefs and the beliefs of the Chinese combining would be a problem for others. Okay, not their beliefs their interests. All nations act on their interests or commit suicide.
So here is the point of the post. How should we deal with Europe and the European Union when it is controlled by Muslims? Alarmists and Idiots ignore the numbers and facts to their own detriment. The people who insisted that Trump would not win the Republican primaries are idiots and he is now the presumptive nominee. He will be the nominee unless someone kills him and then we will see an ever stronger reaction by the forces supporting him and possibly civil disturbance.
We have time to figure out how we will deal with these things in the future, here is no extreme rush and as the years travel forward, the numbers will be understood by more and more people, I am just giving my readers a heads up and the questions they will be asking themselves later to them now. Have a great week.
Saturday, May 21, 2016
Trump and Media Manipulation
YouTube - Britain Might Leave the European Union: A Closer Look. I want you to go to 1:43 seconds into the video and listen to what Mr. Seth Meyers says, he said that the Prime Minister of England should not allow the people of Britain to vote on whether or not to remain in the European Union because when you put things to a popular vote, crazy shit happens. How do you feel about that, about the anti-democracy opinion pushed by the establishment?
YouTube - Polls: Trump Closing In On Hillary. Go to 8:15 in the video. Here is a guy that hates Republicans saying that Trump could win the election in all the swing states.
YouTube - Trump Isn't Conservative Enough For Wall St. Journal... Hillary Is. This is the same guy as in the video above; but, a few days later and a different issue. He discusses how the thing the Establishment want is for Hillary to win over Trump because the establishment doesn't know whether or not Trump will increase taxes on the wealthy and they know Hillary will work to reduce their taxes.
YouTube - Anti-Trump GOPers Consider Trick Shot Strategy | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC. Ms. Maddow discusses how certain establishment Republicans believe they have found a way to deny either Clinton or Trump the white house by having each state pit their favorite politician against Trump and throw the decision on who becomes President out of the electoral college and into the House of Representatives. The wealthy and powerful do not believe in Democracy. Go back and re-read the first paragraph and watch the video. The House of Representatives has about a 10% approval rating, they are not trusted by 90% of the people and the grand plan to stop Trump or Clinton from winning, mostly to stop Trump, is to take the vote away from the people and even from the electoral college which can only represent the votes of the people. Is anyone dumb enough to believe that the establishments extreme attempts to stop Trump are because he wants to keep out illegal aliens? It is about money, it is about taxes and trade. Follow the money. Don't allow your emotions to be used to guide you or you biases. Follow the money.
After this election is done and a president has been chosen, go back and study how the press reported it. I studied propaganda, mind control and hypnosis. I read about subliminal messaging when I was 12 (see "Subliminal Seduction", just go to google or yahoo or bing, it was a book). I grew up in Los Angeles with people in the business (refers to the entertainment and media industry). In my whole life I have NEVER seen the amount of propaganda and manipulation that I have seen by the Republicans or anyone against their own nominee. Love Trump, hate Trump, it doesn't matter if you don't learn something when this election is over.
If you are so pig headed that you hate Trump and are glad that people are being used to vote against him then you are condoning that approach being used on you again to sway you the other way. When this election is over, the outcome will be irrelevant; but, the process and how the media was used by six companies to try and effect the outcome will be obvious. Just go back when this election and look at the story arc and how the media acted, the media that is controlled by six people in the whole world, the heads of the six companies that own 90% of all the media in the world.
YouTube - Polls: Trump Closing In On Hillary. Go to 8:15 in the video. Here is a guy that hates Republicans saying that Trump could win the election in all the swing states.
YouTube - Trump Isn't Conservative Enough For Wall St. Journal... Hillary Is. This is the same guy as in the video above; but, a few days later and a different issue. He discusses how the thing the Establishment want is for Hillary to win over Trump because the establishment doesn't know whether or not Trump will increase taxes on the wealthy and they know Hillary will work to reduce their taxes.
YouTube - Anti-Trump GOPers Consider Trick Shot Strategy | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC. Ms. Maddow discusses how certain establishment Republicans believe they have found a way to deny either Clinton or Trump the white house by having each state pit their favorite politician against Trump and throw the decision on who becomes President out of the electoral college and into the House of Representatives. The wealthy and powerful do not believe in Democracy. Go back and re-read the first paragraph and watch the video. The House of Representatives has about a 10% approval rating, they are not trusted by 90% of the people and the grand plan to stop Trump or Clinton from winning, mostly to stop Trump, is to take the vote away from the people and even from the electoral college which can only represent the votes of the people. Is anyone dumb enough to believe that the establishments extreme attempts to stop Trump are because he wants to keep out illegal aliens? It is about money, it is about taxes and trade. Follow the money. Don't allow your emotions to be used to guide you or you biases. Follow the money.
After this election is done and a president has been chosen, go back and study how the press reported it. I studied propaganda, mind control and hypnosis. I read about subliminal messaging when I was 12 (see "Subliminal Seduction", just go to google or yahoo or bing, it was a book). I grew up in Los Angeles with people in the business (refers to the entertainment and media industry). In my whole life I have NEVER seen the amount of propaganda and manipulation that I have seen by the Republicans or anyone against their own nominee. Love Trump, hate Trump, it doesn't matter if you don't learn something when this election is over.
If you are so pig headed that you hate Trump and are glad that people are being used to vote against him then you are condoning that approach being used on you again to sway you the other way. When this election is over, the outcome will be irrelevant; but, the process and how the media was used by six companies to try and effect the outcome will be obvious. Just go back when this election and look at the story arc and how the media acted, the media that is controlled by six people in the whole world, the heads of the six companies that own 90% of all the media in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)