Life is a Highway

Life is a Highway
Source: Haiku Deck

Friday, August 31, 2012

Libertarianism.Org: Ron Paul 1990: How to Sell Liberty

Source: Libertarianism.Org-Ron Paul-
Source: Ron Paul 1990- How to Sell Liberty

You convince people they are more qualified to make their decisions than government. When you have an educated society and not just an educated class, but a society where most of the country is educated and has the tools to manage their own affairs then you won’t need a big government, or any government trying to manage the people’s affairs for them. Because the people will know how to do these things for themselves. Both from a personal and economic perspective. The biggest threat to big government and statism and what big government supporters should worry about the most is not individual freedom. Individual freedom and limited government are the alternatives to big government. The biggest threat to big government and statism is an educated society.

When people have the tools which is education to manage their own affairs, then they’ll know what to do and what not to do with their own lives. They’ll know not to attack innocent people, because they’ll know that is wrong. They’ll know where to work, because they’ll know what they’re qualified to do and what the pay and benefits comes from the jobs they are qualified for. They’ll know where to live and what is the best place for them, because they’ll know what they can afford and what would be the best community for them. They’ll know where to get their health insurance, what to eat and drink and how much they can handle of those things. How to plan their own retirements, where to send their kids to school. Whether they should smoke, or drink, including marijuana. And who they should sleep and live with and when if ever they should marry their romance partner.

Statists, especially nanny statists both on the Far-Left and Far-Right generally view people as stupid. And not able to manage their own affairs and see freedom as the freedom to make mistakes. Which is why they believe in statism whether its Marxism, or some type of religious theocracy. Which again is why education is the biggest threat to big government. And why statists can’t afford an educated society, because then they won’t have the support for their big government philosophy. So you educate the society and make quality education universal for everyone including low-income children and you’ll have a society that believe in liberty, because they’ll know how to manage their own affairs for themselves.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Libertarian Party: The Libertarian Party's 41 Year Campaign to Abolish the Federal Reserve

President Richard Nixon, the Federal Reserve and War on Drugs, probably are reasons for the creation of the Libertarian Party in 1971-72. But you could probably go back to the New Deal of the 1930s, the creation of the Federal highway system of the 1950s and the Great Society of the 1960s, as other reasons for the Libertarian Party. The Christian-Right comes about in the mid and late 1970s, the New-Left in the Democratic Party from the late 1960s and 1970s that you see as part of the Green Party today. These are all reasons for why we have a Libertarian Party today. Because there isn't a pure anti-big government party in America between either the Democratic or Republican parties. Both parties have anti-big government factions, but aren't purely anti-big government.

The Republican Party has the Christian-Right, Neoconservatives and even Conservative Republicans who support thinks like Social Security, Medicare and environmental regulations. The Democratic Party has the New-Left, Far-Left really. A combination of Democratic Socialists who want to bring Sweden to America as far as how our economic system looks. And they even have people farther left than that who sound more like Marxists when it comes to free speech in that they don't seem to believe in it. The whole so-called political correctness movement that wants to ban offensive, or critical speech towards groups that they believe are vulnerable. As well as people who want to use government to tell Americans by force what they can eat and drink. Nanny statists on the Far-Left.

These are all reasons for the Libertarian Party today. And I'm not a Libertarian even though I'm completely against big government myself. But whether you're a Libertarian or not at least we have a party in this country that believes in individual freedom completely as a party. They don't have factions, or groups that believe in both economic and personal freedom. But they believe in those things completely as a party. The believe in the U.S. Constitution as a whole and don't just speak about aspects of it that they like as they're trying generally in secret to weaken aspects of the Constitution they don't like, or constantly trying to amend it and strip protections from the Constitution that they disapprove of.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

The Boxing History: ABC Sports- Thomas Hearns vs. Marvin Hagler- 1985 World Middleweight Championship

Hearns-Hagler for the World Middleweight Championship in 1985, might be the best great short fight of all-time. But the reason it was a great short fight is because Tommy Hearns made two tactical mistakes. One perhaps not his fault which was to break his hand hitting the top of Marvin Hagler's rock-solid head. Which obviously affected Hearns performance the rest of the fight. But the other mistake which was something he could have avoided was to get into a slugfest with Hagler. A man who was a devastating body puncher who would just wear you out. Not that different from a Joe Frazier, but who avoided punches very well and could take a lot of great shots. Not that he had to very often. Hearns, being 6'1 and very quick with a great jab, should've worked the outside and pounded Hagler when he had him hurt. But you don't go toe-to-toe with a bulldog, when all you need is a leash to keep him under control. But Hearns landed a lot of great shots, but took too much punishment and breaking his hand essentially ended the fight for him.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Pac Film: Libertarian Party Conference 1980- Murray Bookchin and Karl Hess

Source: Pac Film- Ed Clark-
Source: Pac Film: Libertarian Party Conference 1980- Murray Bookchin and Karl Hess

I find it interesting that a self-described leftist who has both socialist and anarchist leanings would be at a Libertarian Party conference. But that is exactly what you have in this video with Murray Bookchin speaking at a 1980 Libertarian Party conference. But I guess if you’re a true Libertarian you believe in free thought, free expression and free ideas. Even if they don’t completely agree with your own ideas and views. Murray Bookchin, sounds to me like Noam Chomsky ideologically. Professor Chomsky is a self-described Libertarian Socialist. Which almost sounds like an Oxymoron, but Chomsky takes the libertarian ideas when it comes to social issues and social policy. And is a Democratic Socialist when it comes to economic policy and foreign policy.

The New-Left in America might be a lot further along had they went the Noam Chomsky route when it came to their ideas. Instead of being about big government all the time and everywhere. And today even now questioning whether free speech is a good thing, because it also allows for the opposition to speak freely. With their whole political correctness movement. But instead said say, “that capitalism and private enterprise are risky things. So you need to limit for-profit enterprises and tightly regulate them. While having a big government there to take care of people when they fall through the cracks of the capitalist private enterprise system. But that personal freedom should be vast and for everyone.” Instead of using a big government to try to protect people from themselves.

Had the New-Left in America taken the Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky and even Bernie Sanders route when it came to both economic and social policy, as well as foreign policy, instead of always being about a big state and that individual freedom is always dangerous whether its economic, or personal and that freedom of choice gives people the freedom to make mistakes that government has to pay for, then they would find that they have a lot in common with the Libertarian Party, libertarian movement as a whole, classical Conservatives and even Center-Left Liberals who are the real Liberals. And they would have a lot more support politically in America. Because they wouldn’t sound like Marxist Communists fascist statists.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Truth Tube: Video: The Mike Wallace Interview: Ayn Rand 1959 Full Interview

Mike Wallace, the famous CBS News journalist who made his mark on CBS 60 Minutes, to me is the best TV interviewer of all-time, or least what I’ve heard. Because he could interview anyone, because of his knowledge and the research he did. He was truly dedicated to his craft. Which is how he was able interview athletes, entertainers, politicians including Presidents and even mobster Mickey Cohen back in the 1950s on the Mike Wallace Interview. But he could also interview people who were in politics, but people who didn’t currently hold office. People who were outside in the sense that they weren’t public officials, but sill influential to the point that they could influence people in how they think.

People like columnists and other writers like authors. People who made a living telling others what they know and what they think about things. Professors and other intellectuals. People like Ayn Rand, one of the most if not the most influential people on libertarianism today. Meaning Ayn Rand, who a lot of Libertarian Americans, people like Ron Paul and others and would bring attention to people who had political beliefs that weren’t popular at the time, or even commonly known. So when Mike Wallace interviewed Ayn Rand in 1959 and interviewing one of the most influential intellectuals on Libertarians and some Conservatives, he wasn’t out of his element. This is no offense to Larry King, but this wasn’t Larry King interviewing Milton Friedman, or someone else with a lot of stature.

Mike Wallace, knew what he was getting into and took the Devils Advocate approach to interviewing Ayn. She was the Objectivist, or Libertarian and he took the side of the Progressive in doing this interview. Self-reliance and self-sufficiency, vs collectivism. Not that Mike Wallace was a Progressive, or a Collectivist. I’m not sure what his politics was, but that’s the role he was playing in this interview as the Devils Advocate. Instead of taking a softball approach and blindly agreeing with everything that Ayn said, but questioning her philosophy. Not a better interviewer to select from than Mike Wallace to select to give Ayn Rand her first national TV interview. Someone who could interview anyone across the media spectrum, including someone like Ayn Rand.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Men's Business Association Education: Video: Ayn Rand's First Appearance on The NBC Tonight Show, 1967

Johnny Carson, was accustomed to entertaining people. Doing skit comedy, standup comedy and interviewing other entertainers. And I'm not saying that Johnny Carson was an ignorant or uneducated man, the opposite was true and he was interested in politics and current affairs. And made fun of people in this business as part of his act. But he was accustomed to interviewing entertainers, not intellectuals like Ayn Rand. Johnny, was accustomed to interviewing people who entertained others for a living, rather than interviewing people who get paid to educate people about philosophy and history.

So when Johnny interviewed Ayn Rand in 1967 on his show, it was a step up for him and probably something he had to do a serious amount of prep work to prepare for. Like reading Ayn Rand's books and reading articles about her, checking out any news footage about her as well. Ayn Rand, wasn't someone that was very commonly known in Hollywood to put it mildly. The intellectuals they were familiar with, already held office and were politicians. Rather than people on the outside looking in, perhaps trying to build a counter-movement, which is what Ayn Rand was doing to a certain extent.

Ayn Rand's, philosophy of objectivism that Libertarians today use as an inspiration for their movement, was about individual freedom. That people should look after themselves first and only after individuals are strong, than we can help others that are weak. Which I'm sure sounds selfish to Progressives who have a collectivist look at politics and life. And Ayn Rand's philosophy in the 1960s, even in the late 60s like in 1967 when this interview was done, was not considered popular. Progressivism, especially when it came to the economy, was still the dominant political philosophy in the United States at this point.

And what Ayn Rand was preaching was the opposite of collectivism. That and I'm guessing most of the people in Johnny Carson's audience were more Progressive than Libertarian. And that Ayn, was in a small minority compared with the rest of this crowd. So she was speaking to an unfriendly audience politically. Ayn, wasn't the first or last politician, or philosopher that Johnny Carson interviewed. He interviewed Ron Reagan, Dick Nixon I believe, Gerry Ford, I believe Bob Dole, Bill Clinton and many others. But none of them were like Ayn Rand. Someone not only willing to believe in a philosophy, that wasn't politically popular yet, but perhaps not even commonly known. And I give Johnny credit for that.

Illuminati Cults

The Religious Right might be the largest cult we have in America

Alan Meires: Joe Frazier, Muhammad Ali and George Foreman- On British TV

Source: Alan Meires-
Source: Alan Meires: Joe Frazier, Muhammad Ali and George Foreman- on British TV

Three giants in the ring and two of the funniest people who've ever lived in Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. Without Parkinson's, imagine Big George and Muhammad, doing a two-man comedy routine and show together. Muhammad, going off on all his opponents that he beat and George telling people how fat people can succeed in America. Or at least people with big mouths and appetites. Joe Frazier, not exactly known for humor, but I don't know of a better heavyweight champion who was under 6'0 at least since the 1960s who was better. He's definitely one of the best 5-10 heavyweight champions of all-time. Even though his time as a world champion or even world championship contender was over by his early thirties.

Unless you want to put Larry Holmes in this group who didn't become the World Heavyweight Champion until 1978, I believe we're talking about the three best heavyweight boxers of the 1970s. Muhammad, won the World Heavyweight Championship twice and was 3-1 against these other two great boxers. Joe Frazier, was World Heavyweight Champion for what, five years. And it took someone as big and strong as a George Foreman to beat. And George beat him twice and George also beat Kenny Norton and some other great boxers. And you could even argue that George underachieved in the 1970s and perhaps should have accomplished more. So this is a great group that was on TV together.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

HBO Sports: 1982 World Heavyweight Championship- Larry Holmes vs Gerry Cooney

Source: HBO Sports- Gerry Cooney vs Larry Holmes, for the WHC in 1982-
Source: HBO Sports: 1982 World Heavyweight Championship- Larry Holmes vs Gerry Cooney

Gerry Cooney vs Larry Holmes, was the classic matchup of the power-fighter vs the power-boxer. Gerry Cooney, is one of the strongest and hardest punching heavyweights of all-time. Who was good enough to fight for the World Heavyweight Championship. But was not a fighter who was built for the distance. Didn't move very well standing 6'7 and weighing 230-240 pounds depending on who he fought. Reminds me a little to George Wepner. If he could get to you early and pound you, he could take you out, because he was so strong and so powerful even for a heavyweight. But the problem he had is he fought a lot of strong heavyweights who could move and take punishment. Larry Holmes, perfect example of that.

Larry Holmes, wasn't a one or two-punch knockout artist, but he was a strong powerful heavyweight who moved very well, who had great boxing skills and simply punished his opponents. Reminds me and a lot of others of the great Muhammad Ali. So this was a fight about who would get to the other first. Could Cooney, take the momentum first, or would Holmes stick and move as he's delivering great punishment to Cooney. That is how Holmes won this fight by attacking Cooney and as a result was able to keep Cooney off him and avoid those huge powerful punches from Cooney. Holmes, didn't take out Cooney in a few punches, but instead pounded Cooney over several rounds and eventually wore Cooney out.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Andy Warhol: Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee Ron Paul on Morton Downey in 1988

Source: Andy Warhol- U.S. Representative Ron Paul, R, Texas-
Source: Andy Warhol: Ron Paul on Morton Downey JR. in 1988

Morton Downey Jr. who died from overuse of tobacco in 2001, tobacco being an illegal narcotic drug in America and yet he was in favor of the War on Drugs. Here debating U.S. Representative Ron Paul on the War on Drugs. Well actually the War on Illegal Drugs, drugs that are seen by the U.S. Government as too dangerous for personal use and personal choice. Well that is Washington speak for “drugs that do not have a strong enough lobbying operation to lobby Congress and the White House for legalization."

You want to know why marijuana is illegal in America? (Well I’ll tell you anyway) It is because they do not have the back pockets of enough Representatives and Senators in Congress. They haven’t bought off enough members of Congress to get their drug legalize. Besides alcohol and tobacco, soft drinks and junk food have already beat marijuana to the punch as far as getting their products legal and keeping them legal with very few regulations. While keeping marijuana illegal. What Representative Paul is saying is that legal drugs are the main problem in America when it comes to drugs. And locking people up for what they do to themselves is simply not working.

I'm not for legalizing all current illegal narcotics in America. I stop at legalization and regulation of marijuana, but then I would decriminalize the others simply because locking people up and sending them to prison for what they do to themselves. Which is has simply not worked as we now have over forty-years of evidence and experience to know. So I'm closer to Representative Ron Paul here than I'm with Mort Downey, who died for over consumption of a legal narcotic and that being tobacco. You get people to not make bad decisions with their own lives by showing them and convincing them why that would be wrong. Not by punishing people for what they do to themselves.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Reason: Javier Sicilia: The Caravan For Peace Calls For an End to The Drug War

Imagine if we had a war on junk food, junk drink, coffee, swimming, go carting, sky diving, alcohol and tobacco, steroids, sex, athletics, gambling, all things that can bring people pleasure, but come with certain risk factors, first, we would have a lot less insomniacs in America, because we would be such a dull country. But we would be country of prison inmates, because Americans do these activities everyday. And thats just for the people who would be arrested for having a good time. We simply don't have enough law enforcement officers to arrest everyone else. We would be arresting people for having a good time and how they live their own lives, not what they do to other people.

Think about it, what are laws for? To protect innocent people from criminals, not to protect people from themselves. Well the War on Drugs is the opposite of that, because it arrests people for what they do to themselves, not what they do to innocent people. And people who support the War on Drugs, people who I call Drug Warriors, will say we have drunk driving laws. Well thats obviously true and I support that, but we haven't labeled alcohol a drug thats really a narcotic considering how dangerous it is and the damage that can come from it, if its abused, illegal at least since not prohibition.

If you don't like marijuana, you don't like the smell of it or whatever, I have some advice for you. Don't use it, don't take it, don't use it at all, don't hangout with people who at least do it around you. Congratulations, because you've just made the decision not to use marijuana. And if you have kids, you should keep it away from them as well. But don't try to force other people not to be able to use marijuana legally. Because for one, just a practical reason, you won't be able to stop them. I mean talk about wasting time, you would be better off trying to pick up a beach ball with a baseball glove. But the other reason being its really none of your business unless they are friends, or relatives and they are abusing it. What you should do instead is mind your own damn business.

Worry about what happens in your own life and what you have control over, rather than what happens in other people's lives. The War on Drugs is about control, overprotection, trying to save people from themselves. Like the overprotected father who tries to lock his daughter in her bedroom until she's 21. For fear she might meet a dangerous guy. And most of the victims of this War, are the people who Drug Warriors claim they are trying to save. People who have experimented with illegal narcotics and end up in the criminal justice system as a result. For what they've done to themselves, rather than what they've done to others.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Los Angeles Times: Staff- What Would Mitt Romney Cut? Overheard Conversation Holds Clues

Source: Mitt Romney For President 2012-

If you want to be a strong Leader, you have a vision of where you want to take the country and have a feel where you want to take the country and believe you are right. And can explain and back up why you believe you’re right. Then you should tell everyone else that as well. Especially people who are considering voting for you. Any politician can say “I’ll tell you my plans once I’m elected”. But voters deserve to know why they should vote for you instead. Blind-voting is not healthy for democracy. We should be educated about the people we consider for high office.

Voters want to know why they are voting for someone. What they believe in, what they are for. Because they don’t have to vote for you, they can vote for your opponent instead. This has been my major disappointment with President Obama. Who so far in a lot of areas has taken the approach of “let others work it out and I’ll come in and save the day when they fail”. If candidates believe so strongly in what they are proposing, they should have the, well guts to keep this clean and be able to explain why they are proposing what they are proposing.

Instead of telling voters, that is if they are on truth serum, “ask me what I’m in favor of once I’m elected. And if you are in favor of it, I’ll tell you”. The differences between governing and campaigning, is once you’re actually in office, you’re held accountable for the decisions you make. Whereas when you’re campaigning, you can theoretically say anything and promise just about anything. Knowing you don’t have to live up to anything you said and promise. And will probably be able to explain why you’re changing course once you’re in office.

A politician can say, “the situation has changed and we must change course to respond to the new, circumstances effectively”. Or in Rick Perry’s case, “I was drunk when I originally took those positions and now that I’m somewhat sober, I know I was wrong and feel the need to change those positions”. Or in Michelle Bachmann’s case, “I was off my medication when I took those positions”. Well actually Michelle is still off her medication, but hopefully she’ll be back on it when this Congress is over and head back home to the institution.

But what strong leaders do, especially executives, whether you agree with what they did or not, is lay out where they want to take the country. And once they are in office, stick with that. Put their agenda through or most of it. Whether you like President George W. Bush or not and I voted against him twice and still celebrate both of those votes annually. And if anything I’ve become more religious since he’s left the White House. Because I thank God he’s no longer President everyday. But at least you knew what he believed in. He was just wrong most of the time and didn’t understand that.

With Mitt Romney depending on which Mitt is speaking, moderate Mitt, Neoconservative Mitt, Religious-Conservative Mitt or establishment Mitt, it is “ask me when I’m in office and then maybe I’ll tell you if I believe I need your support in the next election”. So what the media does instead to try to find out his positions is talk to people he’s talked to and analyze his policies that he puts up on his campaign site. And analyze them for themselves, because he can’t or won’t explain what his own policies would do. And America deserves better leadership than that.
Mitt Romney: Cut 500 Billions in Federal Spending

The Film Archives: Ron Paul on the Principles of the Libertarian Party in 1988

Source: The Film Archives- U.S. Representative Ron Paul, 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for POTUS-
Source: The Film Archives: Ron Paul on The Principles of The Libertarian Party in 1988

The Ron Paul of 1988 is the Ron Paul of 2012 when it comes to his principles. Whether you agree with Representative Paul or not and I tend to agree with him when it comes to issues with the national debt, budget deficit and social issues, at least you know where he is on the issues. The closest thing that the so-called Left from Center-Left where I am, to Far-Left where Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats in America would be, is Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. The only Independent member of Congress. And the only self-described Democratic Socialist member of Congress. But certainly not the only Democratic Socialist in Congress. Especially in the House if you look at how some self-described so-called Progressive Democrats talk and vote.

Someone like a Ron Paul a hard-core classical Libertarian, who is actually fairly Far-Right on economic policy and libertarian on social issues, but not completely anti-government there at least when it comes to people hurting innocent people, could never get elected President of the United States. At least not in the near future. Because even though Americans now tend to agree with Paul on social issues, they like Social Security, Medicare, a public safety net for people who truly need it.  But that is what makes Paul so principled, because I believe he knows these things, but he doesn't see politics as a popularity contest. And believes in his own views so much that he's willing to speak out in favor of what he's in favor of and what he's against. Even if no one else agrees with him.

There's a lot to respect about people who are willing to continue to fight losing battles. Equal rights for all Americans was certainly not popular in the 1940s and 1950s. And yet that is where you see the American civil rights movement get started and about twenty-years later we get the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and a few years after that the 1968 Fair Housing Law. Where those laws don't pass without a lot of support from Congressional Republicans in both the House and Senate. Just because something, or someone might seem unpopular at the time, doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for. Which is what I believe Ron Paul supporters and other hard-right Libertarians should be thinking as they move forward.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Reason: Lucy Steigerwald- What We Saw at The Solidarity Concert for Pussy Riot

Source: The Daily Review Plus- Lucy Steigerwald interviewing a Pussy,  LOL!
Source: Reason: Lucy Steigerwald- What We Saw at The Solidarity Concert For Pussy

Wow! I thought Religious and Neoconservatism was a problem in America, especially when it’s involved in politics. But didn’t realize how big of an issue it is Russia as well. That their Federal Government is trying to clamp down on pornography and perhaps other forms of adult entertainment. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that I don’t live in Russia, or aren’t of Russian ethnicity. You hear stories about Russia as it relates to the Putin Administration clamping down on speech as it relates to the press.

Because Russia does technically have Free Press over there, with private media and so-forth and the Federal Government gets involved when one of their news networks, or publications report a story that’s critical of the Putin Administration. Which is bad enough, but to take it to the next level and it interfere with how people live their own lives and what they do in their own homes, is beyond extreme. Its big government gone wild and is something that Neoconservatives would love to see in America. I can see one these groups holding rallies with some of their famous religious leaders in defense of President Vladimir Putin and what he’s doing to crack down on immoral behavior as they see it.

I can see it now, Neoconservatives holding rallies in favor or what the Putin Administration in Russia is doing as far as it regulates its own people. They would call it something like, “defending God in the name of morality and decency by trying to eliminate pornography in the Russian Federation.” They would be defending a country that just twenty years ago was a communist republic, a country they use to protest against, especially as it relates to religious freedom. But now they would be coming out in a favor of a country that still cracks down on freedom, but in a different way. People’s ability to express themselves and be able to live their own lives and control their own bodies. And perhaps see Neoconservatives holding rallies against people speaking out in favor of free expression.

Which is how pornography has been ruled constitutionally protected under the First Amendment in the United States. I could see rallies organized by Neoconservatives that would one defend the what President Putin is doing in Russia as it relates to pornography and rallies speaking out against people who are speaking out in favor of people’s ability to express themselves sexually. And calling these people immoral and people who should be in prison for what they do in private and what they are speaking out in favor of. Which is a big part of what neoconservatism is in America, restricting freedom to protect what they see as national security and morality.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Reason Magazine: Zach Weissmueller Interviewing Gavin Polone- on Hollywood Hypocrites, Bad Films & The Future of The Industry

Source: Reason Magazine- Gavin Polone-
Source: Reason: Zach Weissmueller Interviewing Gavin Polone on Hollywood Hypocrites, Bad Films & The Future of The Industry

Hollywood is stereotyped as very far to the left compared with the rest of the country. And I’m not going to describe them as liberal, because they are not. Liberal on social issues, but not liberal in the classical sense. Which is where my politics is, but more progressive in the FDR or Teddy Roosevelt, or even socialist in the Bernie Sanders sense. And as Gavin Polone put it, always calling for more big government. But always looking for ways to avoid paying the taxes to finance the big government that they want.

But not all of Hollywood is on the Left, which is a good thing, just like not all Christians who are gun rights supporters are on the right. Which is another good thing. Ronald Reagan is an excellent example of that, so is the late actor/filmmaker Ron Silver who was on the last season of NBC West Wing. Who was also a big and public supporter of President George W. Bush, it's good to have political diversity in these industries so the whole country can be represented.

Especially in a liberal democracy of 320M people  what the United States is. Hollywood is big enough where you can have filmmakers who are as far to the left as Michael Moore, a Social Democrat lets say. To Libertarians like Adam Corrola a comedian/actor as well as other Libertarians in the humor industry lets say. I would say that the large majority of people in Hollywood are on the Left and pretty far to the Left. And someone like a Michael Moore would be considered mainstream there, as well as people like Jeanne Garofalo.

But Clint Eastwood who is not only one of my favorite actors, but as far as I know has been a Republican as long as he’s been an adult and is an example of the Right being represented in Hollywood politics. As well as actor Brian Dennehy and others, as well as Libertarians now coming up in Hollywood or have always been there. Like comedian/actor Drew Carey is a perfect example of that. There will always be leftists in Hollywood, Progressives and even Socialists, as well as Communists, who aren’t as far to the Left, as Liberals who think like me, and I’m not in Hollywood. But people in Hollywood who have similar politics as myself. I mean it is called Liberal Arts and we’ll always be there.

I don’t have a problem with entertainers using their fame to make a point, to bring attention to whatever issue or issues they care about. It’s the hypocrisy that I don’t like. Like saying that the rich and corporations are the problem in the country, even though they are rich themselves. And either work for or run a corporation themselves that I have a problem with, that makes them out of touch with the rest of the country.