Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Elm Street Nasty: 'Homeless in Anaheim'

Source:Elm Street Nasty- a part of Anaheim, California that a lot of people don't see.

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Copyright Disclaimer, Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'fair use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use." 

From Elm Street Nasty 

As I see it there are four levels of poverty in America and it would be bad to have to live at any of these levels in life and try to survive. But there are levels that are worst off than others. 

Level one as I see it, would be the working poor: people with perhaps a full-time job and maybe another job on the side and perhaps are able to get by. But don't make enough money to live above the poverty rate in America and perhaps live on some form of public assistance in America and collect Medicaid or Food Stamps. 

Then there would be level two people, who are unemployed or underemployed and perhaps work seasonable jobs or are on Unemployment Insurance or Welfare Insurance. If they are on Unemployment Insurance, perhaps they are well-educated, but the job they used to have no longer exists. Or they can't find another job in their field at this point. Or didn't finish high school or College or both and had kids before they were ready to support them on their own and are perhaps Single Parents with the other parent out of the picture. 

Then there's level three Poverty, the hungry in America who don't have access to enough food because they can't afford it and they don't have enough food for themselves and their family or perhaps both. The odd thing about level three poverty is that a lot of these people have jobs and perhaps full-time jobs and perhaps another job on the side to go with their full-time job. And perhaps collect Medicaid and Food Stamps, yet they don't can't afford to feed themselves and their families adequately. 

Then there's level four poverty, the homeless in America people who suffer from perhaps all of the consequences that the other levels of poverty, but what's worse is that they can't afford to feed themselves and their families adequately and can't afford a place to live at all. Plus they may also have a health condition or a mental condition or an addiction or a combination of all of these factors that they have to deal with. 

I'm concern with all four levels of poverty in America and have blogged about all four levels before, but in this post I'm going to concentrate on level four homelessness because thats the biggest problem with the most challenges as I see it. 

What we've been doing to fight homelessness in America for the last thirty years and perhaps longer than that, is essentially a warehouse project: essentially warehousing the homeless in America which might sound awful, but its true, its also the same approach we've used to house our prison inmates as well which is a different post. But what we've been doing with the homeless, is bring them off the street and into a homeless shelter or find a homeless shelter on their own. Give them a meal and a cot for the night and perhaps breakfast the next day. But then send them back onto the street no matter the whether good or bad or in between. To make room for the next group of homeless the next day. 

And with this approach we've saved a few homeless people for that night or day, from starvation or freezing to death or being mugged. But then we give them another opportunity to reach that fate the next day by kicking them back on the street the next day. And continuing the cycle of poverty as it relates to homelessness, instead of dealing with the issues of why they are homeless in the first place. 

The way we can help them deal with these issues by empowering them to deal with their own issues. So they can become self-sufficient and close this chapter in their life and move on to a better chapter. What we should be doing instead of having homeless warehouses which is how I would refer to a typical homeless shelter. 

What we should be doing is having housing centers for the homeless which is already happening in big cities like Sacramento and San Antonio. Where these people can get help with their issues and while they are receiving this help. Would live in a motel like setting by themselves or with their family. While they are getting help with the issues that they have for why they homeless in the first place from a housing center. 

Housing centers could help the needy with things like health care, drug rehab, education, and job placement, and then help finding their home, if they need it. As well as other things they would need like getting a state ID as well as sign up for things like Welfare Insurance or Unemployment Insurance, public housing, Food Stamps, and a job in the housing center. To help offset the costs of their stay there so these centers can pay their bills. 

Homelessness in America is a huge problem and represents a major percentage of our poverty rate, especially with the Great Recession and the housing crisis that we are still struggling to recover from. But it's an issue that we can overcome if we are clever and intelligent about it. And move pass the idea of warehousing people and instead empowering people to get themselves the skills that they need to become self-sufficient.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

National Constitution Center: 'How Dr. Martin L. King Cited The Constitution in His Mountaintop Speech'

Source: National Constitution Center- Dr. Martin L. King, the champion of the American civil rights movement, perhaps in 1968.
Source:The New Democrat 

"Dr. King used the Constitution to make his case for the civil rights movement all the time and did it in a very intelligent and accurate way. Saying that African-Americans had the exact same constitution rights as every other American including European-Americans and even English-Protestants simply because they were Americans. That the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution does exactly that. It protects all Americans regardless of race or ethnicity equally. It doesn't say that some Americans are more valuable and worthy than others simply because of their race or ethnicity."

From National Constitution Center

"Two experts of Martin Luther King's last speech. He delivered it on April 3, 1968, at the Mason Temple in Memphis, Tennessee. The next day, King was assassinated."

From News Political Info
Source:News Politics Info- Dr. Martin L. King's mountaintop speech in 1968.

With Southern Anglo-Saxon states in America who were govern by Neo-Confederates who decided that they since they lost the Civil War that what they would do now is simply deny African-Americans their constitutional rights and argue they can do that under some bogus ( to be nice ) argument that under the 10th Amendment and what they call states rights that they ( states ) can essentially do whatever they want. The problem with that argument is that the Constitution supersede's states rights. The states have to be inline with the Constitution just as much as the Federal Government has to be.

Another part of the Constitution that Dr. King consistently cited in his argument for the civil rights movement is the First Amendment. The guaranteed right for all Americans to free speech and free assembly in America. The right for all Americans to peacefully assemble together and express their free speech rights and speak out against injustices and anything else that they want to speak out against. Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and other states back in the 1960s, obviously had another interpretation of the First Amendment. And simply saw African-Americans as not much more than criminals and terrorists and in some cases still as animals like in the era of slavery and believed they could breakup these protests and deny these Americans their First Amendment rights.

The civil rights movement even if it was considered radical back in the 1960s before racial and ethnic minorities became prevalent in America and before minorities had large numbers and before racism was considered to be evil by in large in the Caucasian community, the civil rights movement was about as mainstream as any political movement we've ever seen in America. Because it was about the U.S. Constitution and enforcing it for all Americans. Which under the Constitution itself it's supposed to be enforced equally for all Americans anyway. And I believe Dr. King always understood that.

Monday, January 8, 2018

Marilyn Monroe Family: The Death of Marilyn Monroe

Source: Marilyn Monroe Family-
Source:The New Democrat

Marilyn Monroe is now such a pop culture icon and hero to so many fans of pop culture and hipsters in America, that they simply can’t handle the fact that a woman like this who is so popular and is now such a fashion icon, could actually kill herself and did kill herself. Whether it was accidentally, which has always been my argument since I’ve been following this case closely for three years now, or intentionally which I don’t believe happened.

The followers of John F. Kennedy who can’t believe that a career loser like Lee Harvey Oswald, could actually put together the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, have the same love and devotion to JFK, as the followers and admirers of Marilyn Monroe. One side believing that a loser couldn’t kill their hero. The other side believing that their hero couldn’t had possibly kill herself. This is my more positive approach and take about the conspiracy theorists regarding the death of Marilyn Monroe.

My my more realistic and cynical view about the conspiracy theorists when it comes to the death of Marilyn Monroe, has to do with people who view this as a money making opportunity for them, a business investment. Knowing that there is small but large enough faction of Americans who are willing to believe that the official position on the death of Marilyn having to do with being suicide and accidental overdose, couldn’t possibly had happen because Marilyn was such an icon and goddess that she couldn’t have possibly had kill herself and that people will be more than willing to buy books, documentaries, view documentaries on TV about conspiracy theories involving how Marilyn died that night. Ranging from President Kennedy ordering the murder of Marilyn, to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy the President’s brother committing the murder himself.

Anybody can have a conspiracy theory. But if you want to have that theory be taken seriously by people who aren’t already there with you and ready to believe you, who don’t come off as people who just got out of a mental institution, perhaps escaped from one, or act as if they might need to be in one and are headed to one, you need real evidence. You need evidence that puts someone in the room at or about the time that Marilyn died. And you need a cause of death and show that someone else other than Marilyn is responsible for her death. And the people who believe or claim to believe that someone other than Marilyn Monroe herself is responsible for her own death, have never offered any evidence that someone other than Marilyn killed herself on that summer might in 1962.

Monday, December 11, 2017

Marilyn Monroe: Mysteries & Scandals (1998)

Source:Classic Hollywood Central- this is from a Mysteries and Scandals documentary about Hollywood Babydoll Marilyn Monroe.

Source:The New Democrat

“Hey, guys! I’m kind of addicted to a series on here called “Mysteries and Scandals” that aired on E! from 1998-2001. I thought the music used in the series was extremely beautiful and I went on the hunt for the instrumental pieces and found a lot of them. I decided to make a series based on this called “Mysteries and Scandals Music”. The piece in this video is not used in a particular episode, but it’s just as beautiful as the music that is. The title is “Marilyn” and the artist is Percy Faith. I do not own any of the material presented here. Thanks for watching :)”


"E! Mysteries & Scandals: Marilyn Monroe (1998)

Noreen Siegel (Monroe's doctor's wife), Jeanne Carmen (actress), James Spada (biographer), Jack Clemmons (cop on scene), James Haspiel (author), Evelyn Moriarty (friend) and Dr. John Miner are interviewed about the mysterious death of Marilyn Monroe.

Monroe's entire life was nothing but mysteries and scandals so her acting career isn't even discussed here because the main focus is her controversial death and the various theories surrounding it. Was it a suicide? Accidental overdose? Were the Kennedy's involved? Or perhaps the maid? Each of these theories are discussed and we get interviews with a cop who was first on the scene of her death as well as several of Monroe's friends. This is certainly one of the better episodes in the series simply because Monroe's death was just so bizarre that it opens up a can of worms in regards to the theories as to what happened. If you're a fan of the series you'll certainly enjoy the episode...  

From IMDB 

"The Mystery of Marilyn Monroe and her death on August 4th 1962."  

Source:Marilyn Monroe History- Hollywood Babydoll Marilyn Monroe 
From Marilyn Monroe History

I don't believe there is much if any mystery to the death of Marilyn Monroe. Hate to break it to the people who have to believe that there was some suspicious Hollywood like scandal involving the death of one of their Hollywood icons and celebrities. People who believe that John F. Kennedy had ordered the death of Marilyn and perhaps had her pint-size brother Bobby commit the murder himself. The same people who perhaps believe that Lyndon Johnson ordered the death of President Kennedy. Maybe they also believe that LBJ ordered the death of JFK because he wanted Marilyn for himself.

But thats an issue with conspiracy theories they tend not to have a lot of intelligence and reasoning behind him. And tend to be put together by people who simply have too much time on their hands or have a tough time dealing with the real world what the rest of us call Planet Earth and they escape to the planet of Fantasyland where they simply see things that no one else can. And not because they have even better than 20/20 vision or borrowed Superman's supervision. But because they see things that simply don't exist. Their bodies might be on Earth but their minds are on Fantasyland.

You could argue suicide and not sound like someone who just escaped from a mental institution. Marilyn Monroe did have a history of depression and lacked self-confidence. Here's a woman who was 5'5-5'6 who had a great body who cill fill out denim jeans and tight dresses and skirts as well or better than any woman who has ever lived, who had a beautiful body obviously. 

Marilyn was ta hot, baby-faced, adorable woman with a little girls' personality to match her baby face and yet you have this beautiful hot Los Angeles August Saturday night and she's home alone in her big house. With only her maid as far as any possible company. Which I believe could back any possible suicide theory . Why is this Hollywood goddess home alone on this gorgeous summer Saturday night?

55 years later I still believe the best theory to how and why Marilyn Monroe died during the summer of 1962 was an overdose. Again, she had a history of depression, was a borderline alcoholic if not an alcoholic and was addicted to pain killers. A lot of those pills dealing with the depression that she had. 

I'm not arguing suicide but when you're drunk you tend to do a lot of stupid things unintentionally. (Not that I'm speaking from personal experience) Especially if you get drunk on a regular basis.

And its very believable that she simply not just drank too much that night but even after having all of that alcohol still wasn't feeling very well and decided that she needed something else to make her feel better. So she turns to pills. Pills and alcohol together, is like fire and gas together: you only put those things together when you want a big explosion. 

So Marilyn is drinking too much and then taking not just pills but too many pills and I still believe the best theory is that she unintentionally overdosed which is what killed her and that she unintentionally killed herself.

People who are going to argue that someone murdered someone else need a better theory than the supposed target has dirt on them that they're about to release which is why the supposed suspect or suspects had their target murdered. You need to at least be able to put a suspect at the place where the supposed target was murdered at the time or about the time that the target died. 

Again, people who believe that both Jack and Bob Kennedy were involved the death of Marilyn Monroe, perhaps also believe that Lyndon Johnson ordered the death of Jack Kennedy. Lyndon just happening to be the Vice President of the United States when he supposedly had President Kennedy murdered. The same evidence to offer LBJ being behind the death of JFK, is the same evidence that has been offered to support JFK and RFK, being behind the death of Marilyn Monroe: which is nothing.  

Monday, December 4, 2017

Americans United: Rokia Hassanein: Jerry Falwell Jr. Admits That The Religious Right's Support For Donald Trump Is About Power, Not Values

Source:Americans United- Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr.
Source:The New Democrat

The Religious-Right (Christian-Right, actually) support for a man like Donald Trump is all the evidence that you need to know that this political movement is nothing more than a fraud. This is a moment that self-proclaim's itself being about defending conservative Christian values and what they call American values, and yet they back a man who owns casinos, did business with strip clubs, admits to molesting women, has been divorced twice and cheated on his previous two wives, was pro-choice on abortion up until 2011 or so, a New York City Liberal Democrat, up until 2012 or so, even pro-gay marriage and yet they claim is someone who defends their conservative Christian values. Which of those values is he defending? The divorces, abortion, sexual harassment, gay marriage?

The Christian-Right, at least the hardcore partisans in the movement who seem interested nothing but defeating Democrats at any costs, are a political cult. Religious cult might be too nice for them. They are America's and the West's version of ISIS. They take a religion in Christianity and the Evangelical wing of it and have completely butcher it. And have fooled millions of Southern Anglo-Protestants in America into thinking that they're behind him and back their way of life and defend Christianity everyday. When the only thing that they're doing is backing Republicans who share their fundamentalist theocratic political philosophy.

Jerry Falwell Jr. (the President of Liberty University) support for Donald Trump, is all about politics. It has nothing to do with Christianity and Christian values. Trump wasn't active at all when it came to religion up until a few years ago and can't even quote one line from the Bible. Trump is a Republican and a right-wing Nationalist and Falwell and other members of his movement see his as their ticket to getting right-wing judges appointed and confirmed, as well as getting more right-wing Republicans and so-called Christian-Conservatives elected to office.

Monday, November 27, 2017

Skeptic Magazine: 'How Rachel Bloom Became a Card-Carrying Skeptic'

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Comedian Rachel Bloom, on why she's a skeptic 
Source:The Daily Review 

“Rachel Bloom (creator and star of the American romantic-comedy-drama Crazy Ex-Girlfriend) shared with us a few of the defining moments in her life that led to her becoming a card-carrying skeptic.

Tell us your story and become a card-carrying skeptic!
Learn how at:Skeptic." 


 believe anyone who is a realist and just doesn't call themselves a realist because they have some need to have people believed they're smarter and more advanced than they really are, but literally lives by the attitude or practice of accepting situations for what they are and not over or underplaying things, but seeing everything for what it is based on the best available information at the time, is not just going to be a skeptic but a natural skeptic. As well as one of the least romantic people you'll ever meet. Not a bad person, necessarily but not someone who doesn't have big dreams generally.

A skeptic is Probably not a fan of romantic comedies and certainly not romance novels and not someone you want to spend a day watching a holiday movie marathon of romantic comedies on The Hallmark Channel or some other network. Not someone who is going to say, "dreams really do come true." But instead will be the person that not just tells you what they know and what they're thinking and will kick your butt verbally when you need it because they'll tell you when you screwed up and perhaps tell you how you can fix the problem or problems. They'll tell you what you don't want to hear, because they know its medicine that you need to know to improve yourself.

According to Wikipedia- skepticism is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief. A skeptic will be the last person who is going to get screwed over by someone or something, because the skeptic doesn't automatically take everything that they hear from someone else at face value. "That person must be telling the truth because they would't hurt me or are not stupid." Really? That might be true but if that person just happens to tell the same thing to a skeptic, the skeptic won't automatically take whatever that person said at face value, especially if what that person said doesn't match up very well with reality. Doesn't match up with the best available facts and evidence on the ground.

I believe skeptics are people who have generally been screwed over by others in the past and simply hate that feeling to the point that they don't want that to happen to them again. So a wealthy man lets say who perhaps isn't the best looking man around who has a history of being involved with beautiful sexy women who later get a lot of money and other property from the man and perhaps even win judgements against the man, that guy especially if they're still a wealthy man even after dating all the gold diggers, will have hopefully have learned their lesson. Especially after already being played by 3-5 gold diggers in the past and will think long and hard about getting involved with another beautiful sexy woman in the future, especially a younger woman and make preparations in the future. Especially if that guy already has kids who are grown up.

Now, someone who doesn't have a history of being screwed over but has been very skeptical all along just from being on Planet Earth especially in America and knowing that there are a lot of Americans who want the truth to be better than it is, as well as having a habit for telling people what they want to know instead of whatever the truth is, that is the person that you want to get to know. Even if you do love romance and even romantic comedies and holiday movies, because you'll always know where that person is emotionally, what they're thinking because they'll tell you. And you'll end up learning a lot from that person. You also might come down with a case of depression,  because a lot of news in the world and what's going on can be tough to hear. But if you're a mentally healthy intelligent person, you'll not only get a lot from that person but be able to handle that information as well.

I'm not saying people should be negative or positive, optimistic or pessimistic. I'm saying they should be real and always live on Planet Earth. Unless they're an astronaut and then I guess there will be times when they leave the real world. But seriously, always know what's going on so you can make the best available decisions and adjustments that you possibly can. The three most valuable tools that any person can have in life are their health, time, and information. Without your health, you really can't do anything and you might not even be conscience anyway. Without time, well you can't do anything either because you're always out of time.

But without valuable credible information even if you're healthy and manage your time well, you're going to make a lot of mistake simply because you don't know what the hell your'e doing. A person that Rachel Bloom might call can asshole. Someone who is skeptical or is a skeptic, will simply make the best decisions they possibly can because they're always operating under the best information. Thats all.   

Monday, November 20, 2017

The Washington Post: Anne Applebaum: '100 Years After The October Revolution, Bolshevism is Back & We Should be Worried'

Source: The Washington Post- Pro-Vladimir Lenin rally in Moscow? 
Source:The New Democrat

"100 Years After The October Revolution, Bolshevism is Back & We Should be Worried"

From The Washington Post

"World War One broke the 2nd International, as most of the workers' parties supported their own ruling class and the war effort. Lenin and the Bolsheviks maintained a class position, opposing the war, even after the February Revolution, when many former opponents of the war became supporters. The Bolshevik war policy became a key pillar of the party's programme as it led the working masses to victory in October 1917.

This speech was made by Niklas Albin Svennson at the World School of the International Marxist Tendency in 21017."

From In Defence of Marxism

Source: In Defense of Marxism- Pro-Communist rally in Moscow?
Anne Applebaum in her Washington Post column seems to be arguing that the New-Right or Alt-Right both in America and in Europe, come from leftist movements and we really aren't talking about right-wingers here, but Far-Leftists who are now backing right-wing Nationalist candidates, because these Nationalist candidates and politicians, are also anti-multiculturalism, integration, globalization, perhaps share certain fundamentalist religious beliefs when it comes to cultural issues.

I hope Anne Applebaum is not making this argument at least from pure partisan lens and is someone on the Right who simply can't admit that there are extremists and fringe elements on her side of the political spectrum. Which is what right-wingers Hugh Hewett and Jeffrey Lord do all the time when they're questioned about some extremist or fringe movement on the Right, there response is always something to the affect, what about these extremists on the Left, or the extremists that are being talked about are really left-wingers. In an attempt dodge the issue.

Hyper-Partisans on the Right argue all the time that Neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, are actually leftists. Or that it was Progressive and Liberal Democrats, who fought against and blocked civil rights legislation in Congress in the 1960s. Even though the opposition to those laws actually came from Neo-Confederate right-wing Dixiecrats in the Democratic Party who are Republicans today because of the civil rights law and the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. And besides, a lot of people on the Right who make these arguments that Left were the ones blocking civil rights legislation, don't support those laws today.

As far as Nationalists in America and even Neo-Confederates in America who backed Donald Trump and the Republicans who still back President Trump in Congress especially in the House of Representatives, they're part of the right-wing populist Tea Party movement of the late 2000s and earlier part of this decade. Representative Steve King from Iowa, is inline with President Trump on all the cultural and economic issues, as well as foreign affairs. Who sees multiculturalism and non-European immigration as a threat to American culture. Right-wing author and columnist Ann Coulter, is one of the princesses of the Alt-Right, has been one of Donald Trump's biggest supporters since he declared his presidential candidacy in 2015. Same thing with right-wing Nationalist columnist and author Pat Buchanan, who has backed Donald Trump from day one.

We're not talking about Communists or even Democratic Socialists when we're talking about Donald Trump's Nationalist base in America. We're talking about blue-collar populists from the deep South and Midwest, who are primarily European-American, as well as Protestant, but Catholic as well, who believe their America is disappearing and see immigration as a threat to their way of life and culture in America.

Donald Trump who is no genius when it comes to public policy certainly and doesn't even read legislation and policies that comes out in favor of, before changing his mind the next day after hearing from people who disagree with the policy because they've read it and understand it, but Trump doesn't have a keen political eye. And saw a huge opening and feeling in the country and way to tap into it and form his own political movement that he use to get to the White House. Even though 10-15 years ago you cold probably accurately describe Donald Trump as a New York Liberal Democrat.

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy