The New Yorker: Opinion- Steven Markow: ‘Campaign Slogans For The Centrist Party’

Campaign Slogans for the Centrist Party - Google Search

Source:The New Yorker– Vote for Centrists, if you too believe in nothing

Source:The New Democrat 

“The nation is divided. Loved ones tweeting at loved ones. What the American people need now more than ever is a party that can unite the entire country in disappointment. That’s where we step in: the Centrist Party. In 2020, we want you to skip the red and the blue and vote for the grayish taupe that represents our ideologically meek coalition. We couldn’t decide on a campaign slogan—every time we voted on one, everyone abstained—so we’ll let you read the list and, if any resonate, awesome; if not, no big deal!

“For the exhausted.”

“Some ideas. Some beliefs. Some feelings.”

“Thinking exactly what you think since [day you were born].”

“Putting the awkward silences back in Thanksgiving.”

“We can be bought.”

“Like our symbol, the petrified deer, we’re proudly frozen in the middle of the road.”

“Make news boring again.”

“Proudly standing against proudly standing against anything.”

“The sanest, most reasonable waste of a vote.”

Read more of Steven Markow’s piece at The New Yorker

What does a moderate voter look like_

Source:Newsy: ‘What does a moderate voter look like?’– Is Moderate, another label for Nihilist?

“Moderate voters tend to see both parties as extreme, and they mainly want compromise.”

If you look at the current American political system and party system, about 3-10 American voters are Democrats. 3-10 American voters are Republicans. And then roughly 4-10 American voters are neither a Republican or Democrat, are either a member of the third-party or no party at all.

It’s that 40% number that the so-called mainstream media looks at and tends to label them as Centrists and Independents, just because they’re simply not Democrats or Republicans. Which gives you an idea about how strong the critical thinking is with these media organizations. Even though that 4-10 number is made up of people who are yes, Centrist-Independents, ( if there is such a thing anymore ) but also Libertarians on the Right, Socialists ( Democratic and otherwise on the Far-Left ) Communists on the Far-Left, people who are called White-Nationalists on the Far-Right, and people who are called Black-Nationalists on the Far-Left.

My point here is just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, or is an Independent, doesn’t mean that they’re a Centrist. It just might mean that they don’t like Democrats and Republicans. ( And who can blame them, especially since we have to pay for them ) So when you’re talking about Centrists, you really need to know who you’re talking about and don’t automatically assume that just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, that they’re Centrists.

Just like you shouldn’t assume that because it was warm and sunny today, that it will automatically be warm and sunny tomorrow. That you sort of want to know that in advance, before you decide to head to the beach and get caught in a tropical storm on the way there and wonder where did all of that rain come from. You also shouldn’t assume that just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, or is an Independent, that they’re automatically Centrists.

Me personally, I really don’t believe there is anymore any thing such thing as a Centrist: roughly 60-70% of the country believes in both economic and personal freedom. And according the the geniuses at the mainstream media, those people would be called Centrists, because they’re not particularly right or left and certainly not Far-Right or Far-Left. But if that were the case, Libertarians would be Centrists.

Think about this for a second: Libertarians, who believe that every single government regulation and safety net program, as well as civil rights law, that was created in the 20th Century should be eliminated, who believe that America should drop out of every foreign organization that America is a member of, who believe the Federal income tax should be repealed, and that every narcotic drug that is currently illegal, should be legalized at the Federal level, would be the New-Centrists in American politics. At least according to this mainstream media line of thinking. But anyone with a brain who also happens to use it and is also familiar with American politics, ( which would make you a member of a very small and exclusive club ) knows that can’t be true.

I don’t think we have Centrists, because if you poll on the issues and who American voters tend to vote for and against and who they poll based on what politicians propose and are against, we tend to have a pretty good idea. Americans tend to like their personal and economic freedom, their individualism, their independence from government at least, but they also tend to want a regulatory state for predators, as well as law enforcement to protect us from predators. A safety net for people who truly need it. A military strong enough to defend the country. Civil rights laws, so people aren’t denied access in America, simply because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, or sexuality.

And again to my point about Libertarians, if the definition of a Centrist was someone who was conservative on economic and fiscal policy, but liberal on social issues, who believed in both personal and economic freedom, Libertarians would be the Centrists in America. But who seriously believes that Libertarians are Centrists?

If you’re definition of a Centrist is someone who is right down the middle on the political spectrum and perhaps a member of the Mushy-Middle Voters of America, who only takes a stand on any issue when there’s a consensus to do so, whose motto: “I’m willing to compromise on anything, because I believe in nothing: a vote for me is a vote for nothing.” If that’s your idea of a Centrist, someone who is basically a Nihilist, then those voters might actually exist in American politics.

Just look at Millennial’s who only vote for people that they believe are cool and will support anything that person says, just as long as it’s cool and they sound cool. Just look at Beto O’Rourke’s base. ( Or what’s left of it at this point ) A man who proved at last Wednesday’s Democratic debate, that he can not answer questions in multiple languages. Actually, that also happens to be the only thing that Beto accomplished last Wednesday: he’s wishy-washy in two languages.

If you’re idea of a Centrist is someone who spilts the difference on the every key issue if not all issues all together, then I would hate to have that person planning my wedding or any other party. Because you would have food, outfits, decorations that are simply out of place.

I would also hate to have those people in charge of writing the U.S. Constitution some 240 years ago. What would our First Amendment look like if Centrists wrote it: Americans are free to say and believe whatever they want, just as long as at least 50% of the country agrees with it? We can have Freedom of Religion, just as long as at least 50% of the country agrees to be a member of the same religion or no religion at all. We would have the Right to Privacy, but only on the second floor of our homes. We would have an Equal Protection Clause, but for only half of the country. The campaign symbol for a Centrist Party, would be the dear in the headlights in the middle of the road, because Centrists have a 100% dedication to neutrality and compromise. The life of the Centrist if there is such a thing, must be really hard. I mean just making decisions about what to do order at a restaurant must be painful.

Posted in American Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Yorker: Opinion- Osita Nevanevu: ‘Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Two Paths for the American Left’

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Two Paths for the American Left - Google Search

Source:The New Yorker– The battle for the Left-Wing in the Democratic Party

Source:The New Democrat 

“This past week was perhaps one of the most important weeks in one of the most important election seasons in the history of the Democratic Party. Elizabeth Warren is on the rise. Coverage of her array of policy proposals and hard campaigning has put her in second place over Bernie Sanders in at least one national poll and a few state polls. Sanders, meanwhile, delivered a major address this past Wednesday defining “democratic socialism,” a self-applied label that sets him apart from Warren, who has called herself “capitalist to my bones.” Each putatively offers a different tack for the Party’s reinvigorated progressive wing to take against the current front-runner, Joe Biden, and President Trump in the general election.

But since Sanders entered the race many commentators have expressed the view that the substantive differences between Warren and Sanders don’t extend very far. “Why would Democratic voters choose Sanders when Warren is running?” the writer Moira Donegan asked in the Guardian earlier this year. “The two are not ideologically identical, but the differences between their major policy stances, on regulation of financial services and the need to extend the welfare state, are relatively minor, especially compared to the rest of the field.”

This is mostly true, particularly on domestic policy. A Sanders Administration may well pursue many of the proposals Elizabeth Warren has put out, from a progressive wealth tax to large new investments in affordable housing. Warren has backed Sanders’s criticisms of Amazon’s labor practices, and both candidates support the Green New Deal. There is a key difference, however, on one of the race’s key issues: Warren is a co-sponsor of Sanders’s Medicare for All bill but has yet to state whether she supports its call to eliminate private health insurance, a provision that other candidates who nominally support the Sanders plan have waffled on or rejected.”

Read the rest of Osita Nevanevu’s piece at The New Yorker

“Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are both introducing tax reform bills that would use wealth tax to make the rich pay their fair share. The Elizabeth Warren wealth tax could raise trillions of dollars in tax revenue. Both Warren and Sanders have thrown their hat into the 2002 presidential election. Elizabeth Warren 2020 is gaining steam daily. Republicans meanwhile are hoping to create more tax cuts for the rich.

Warren unveiled the Ultra-Millionaire Tax. It could generate almost $3 trillion for Americans over the next decade. It would only affect households with assets over $50 million. It would tax 2% on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and tax 3% on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion.

Bernie dropped the ‘For the 99.8% Act.’ It goes after the 0.2% of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million by taxing their estates at 77%. This comes after 3 GOP Senators introduced plans to abolish the estate tax, which they deem the ‘death tax.’

Bernie’s tax plan could raise $2.2 trillion from just 588 billionaires over time. And raise $315 billion in the next decade. Bernie’s tax plan isn’t new — a GOP President once championed the idea. One thing’s for sure: Wall Street is terrified by both Bernie AND Warren’s plans.”

When you’re talking about Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren for President in the Democratic primaries, you’re not talking about Barry Goldwater vs. Nelson Rockefeller from 1964 in the Republican primaries: Senator Goldwater, was a hard-core, true Conservative-Libertarian Republican and literally one of the founding father’s the conservative-libertarian movement not just in the Republican Party, but in America. Governor Rockefeller, was a Right-Progressive Republican ( I know that sounds crazy ) back when right-wing Progressives were a major part of the Republican Party.

When you’re talking about Bernie vs. Liz, ( Or Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren ) you’re talking about two people who basically believe in the same things. If anything, Liz is to the Left of Bernie on wha the Far-Left calls identity politics and Bernie isn’t interested in making race, ethnicity, or gender political issues and just wants to see that people aren’t denied access in America simply because of their DNA and biological characteristics. And Bernie, is to the Left of Liz perhaps when it comes to rhetoric about American corporations and believes that private health insurers should be outlawed, where, Liz just wants Medicare to be available for everyone, but not mandated on everyone.

But Bernie and Liz, both believe that the American private enterprise system should still be intact and not nationalized by the U.S. Government: neither one of them are Marxists, but they’re both Democratic Socialists ( or Social Democrats, if you prefer ) who believe in the American private enterprise system, but that it should be highly taxed and regulated to fund a large and generous American welfare state. That worker benefits should be supplied by the Federal Government, not by private employers.

This idea that the main difference between Bernie and Liz, is that Bernie is a proud and self-described Democratic Socialist and that Liz calls herself a capitalist, doesn’t not just fly, but it doesn’t get off the ground: sort of like an airplane stuck in Phoenix, Arizona in July because it’s too hot and the plane overheats. ( Something that I’ve experienced personally ) Or a plane in Minneapolis, Minnesota in January, because there’s too much snow on the ground.

For one, capitalism is not a political ideology, but an economic system: when Senator Warren called herself a capitalist instead of a Socialist, she answered that as if she was saying that she was a capitalist and not a Marxist: that she believed in the private enterprise system and not state-ownership of the entire economy and society. But that was not the question; she was asked that because the reporter was asking about her political philosophy, not whether she believed in capitalism or not.

The only major differences other than a public option for Medicare, which is was Elizabeth Warren believes in, versus Medicare For All with no private options being available, which is what Bernie Sanders believes in and identity politics which is what Liz believes in and supports and Bernie doesn’t, is how they self-describe their politics. Bernie, is an out-of-the-closet Eugene Debs-Henry Wallace- Norman Thomas- David McReynolds- George McGovern Democratic Socialist and proud of all of that. Liz, is a stuck in the closet Democratic Socialist. ( Or Social Democrat, if you prefer )

Bernie and Liz, both support American private enterprise and American capitalism. But both believe in a highly regulated private economy, with a large welfare state to provide Americans workers with all the benefits that they need, instead of their employers. And they both believe in high taxation across the board and on private employers to fund that welfare state. This is not Goldwater vs. Rockefeller, but more like Henry Wallace vs. Norman Thomas.

Posted in New Left | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Onion: ‘Sarah H. Sanders- Tells Colleagues She’s Taking Temporary Post As Google CEO Before Transitioning Into Full-Time Role As Sultan Of Brunei’: No More Onion Stories From The White House?

Huckabee Sanders Tells Colleagues She’s Taking Temporary Post As Google CEO Before Transitioning Into Full-Time Role As Sultan Of Brunei - Google Search.png

Source:The Onion– Thank God, for only one Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Source:The New Democrat 

“Informing those in her professional life of her career plans, outgoing White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders reportedly told colleagues Friday she would be serving for a time as CEO of Google before gradually taking on a permanent position as the sultan of Brunei. “It’s been the honor of my life to work in the White House, but I’m excited to lead a $750 billion company in Silicon Valley and begin my reign as one of the world’s last absolute monarchs,” said Huckabee Sanders, explaining she had reluctantly turned down offers to direct the next Star Wars film, design the 2024 Olympic stadium, and become the first person to set foot on Mars, in addition to a lucrative position as head of neurosurgery at the Mayo Clinic.”

Sarah H. Sanders: “Saudi Arabia and Monaco were both pursuing me pretty hard with head of state jobs, and Uber’s been trying to recruit me for their top post for 19 years now, but those opportunities just didn’t have the work–life balance I was looking for. Believe me, it was a tough choice. I spent hours talking it over with my husbands George Clooney, Tom Brady, and Jason Aldean.”

Sarah H. Sanders: “While I’m excited to begin my next chapter, I’ll be taking some time off for myself first. So don’t be surprised if you see me this summer relief-pitching for the Dodgers or traversing the Congo Rainforest with my best friend, Cardi B!” Huckabee Sanders went on to state that she was currently busy reviewing designs for the awards display she will build in the Bruneian palace of Istana Nurul Iman to showcase her multiple Emmys, Pulitzers, and Nobel Peace Prizes.”

From The Onion

Trump's Collusion Confusion & Sarah Huckabee's Departure

Source:Jimmy Kimmel Live: ‘President Trump’s Collusion Confusion & Sarah Huckabee’s Departure’-– Welcome to Donald Trump at The White House: the first reality show ever at The White House, that could only come from Donald J. Trump.

“As Trump gears up for his 73rd birthday, he joined George Stephanopoulos for 30 hours and revealed that he doesn’t seem to know what collusion is and unveiled his plans for a new Air Force One. He also tweeted about meeting the ‘Prince of Whales,’ and announced that Sarah Huckabee Sanders is leaving the White House. So as she gets ready to take her leave we stop to reflect on her two incredible years.”

When I first heard about Sarah Sanders leaving The White House as Press Secretary, my first reaction was that The Onion will no longer be feeding The White House Press Office with news stories. Seriously, a lot of what she and her colleagues report and talk about from The White House, it’s like reading The Onion and getting the same stories from them. Since this is a right-wing ( to be kind, Far-Right to be more accurate ) White House, maybe their stories and what they say sounds more like stories that come from The National Enquirer, since TNE is not just in bed with Donald Trump, but they’re like his loyal mistress ( unlike Stormy Daniels ) who’ll do anything for him. They sleep on The Donald to show how loyal they are to him.

The reason why Sarah Sanders hasn’t had a press conference since March ( even though she’s The White Press Secretary and this is a major part of her job ) is that she’s only human: there’s only so much garbage ( to be too generous ) that any human being even the world champion of compulsive liars ( Donald Trump, being the current world champion ) can manage, handle, and put up with each day. Whatever you think of her and I think she’s one of the most dishonest people in American politics today, ( which makes her very dishonest ) she’s only human and knows that she’s President Trump’s chief bullshitter and being that would have to take a toll on anyone, especially if you’re thinking about having a career with serious, credible, intelligent, and respectful people in the future.

I guess I’ll wish Sarah Sanders well, but only because that means we’ll just have one less bullshitter at taxpayers expense at The White House. But don’t get too excited, because she’ll be replaced as fast as one of President Trump’s political positions and we’ll get a new chief bullshitter at The White House who’ll be just as effective if not more at bullshitting the American people at taxpayers expense.

Posted in The Onion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Washington Post: Opinion- Karen Tumulty: ‘Joe Biden Learned The Hard Way There is No Middle Ground On Abortion’: Joe Biden’s Flip Flop Over The Hyde Amendment

joe biden kickoff rally - Google Search

Source:The Washington Post– Joe Biden: flip-flopping on the Hyde Amendment

Source:The New Democrat 

“There has long been a relatively safe space for a Democratic politician, particularly a Catholic one, to inhabit on the morally fraught issue of abortion.

It was the stance that then-Vice President Joe Biden took during a 2012 debate: “Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life,” Biden said. “But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews. . . . I do not believe we have a right to tell other people — women — that they can’t control their body.”

At the time, that blanket declaration was enough to satisfy most Democrats. It is not anymore — as Biden learned this week, when the man who leads all the polls for the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination was thrown off balance on the question of government funding for abortion.”

Read the rest of Karen Tumulty’s piece at The Washington Post

 

Biden flips on Hyde Amendment

Source:ABC News: Joe Biden- ‘Flips on Hyde Amendment’– Joe Biden; doing his Mitt Romney, over the Hyde Amendment

“2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden reversed his stance on a measure that prevents using federal funding for abortions.When former Vice President Joe Biden announced that he was running for President last month, his message and appeal was basically that he wasn’t President Donald Trump and that he was different.”

If you look at Donald Trump before Barack Obama before he became President and then after he became President, the so-called Donald was basically a mainstream Democrat. A wealthy, New York City businessman who backed Democrats for most of his career. And then a guy named Barack Obama becomes President the first African-American in American history, with the bogus ( to be kind ) and racist birther movement around him and The Donald decides that he wants to be in politics too and becomes the champion of the Far-Right with the birther movement back in 2011.

And then in 2015 The Donald decides he wants to be President after 6 years of a Progressive, African-American President running the country and gets behind the Far-Right on everything in launching his own Nationalist movement in the country and basically other than perhaps tariffs and immigration, reverses course on almost every single political position that he had before. Making Mitt Romney look like the most principled politician that this country has ever seen.

Joe Biden, is running not just as the anti-Trump, but as someone who will change the character of the presidency and get it out of Donald Trump’s morality toilet and return honor and decency to the country.

Kind of hard to make that case when on Wednesday of last week you’re saying that your support for the Hyde Amendment, ( that was proposed by Representative Henry Hyde in 1976 ) that was passed by Congress in 1976 that then Senator Joe Biden voted for and continued to support during his entire career in the Senate, was a deeply heartfelt view that American taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay for someone else’s abortions, ( except in the cases of life and health of the mother, or rape or incest ) and then on Thursday announce you can no longer support an amendment that denies abortion rights to low-income women, even though on Wednesday that you already knew that low-income women couldn’t get taxpayer assistance to pay for their abortions.

The Hyde Amendment to me at least is not about whether abortion should be legal in this country: I’m pro-choice on practically everything short of people hurting innocent people with what they’re doing, including abortion because I don’t believe life starts at conception, but at the last stages of the woman’s pregnancy. It’s not a question of whether abortion should be legal in America or not, but who should pay for it.

We all make our own choices and we all have our own personal freedom in this country. We also all have our own personal responsibility in this country and are held accountable for our own personal decisions. Why should abortion be any different? I’m not talking about forcing women who are raped including by their own male relatives to be forced to carry that pregnancy to its end. Or denying women abortion even though they need it to protect their health and even life. The Hyde Amendment, has all of these exceptions in it. I’m just saying that American taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize the abortions of others other than the exceptions that I just laid out. And until last Thursday, Joe Biden shared this exact same position and held that exact same position since 1976 when he voted for the Hyde Amendment when it was passed in that Congress.

People who oppose the Hyde Amendment from the Left, argue that Hyde Amendment denies low-income women the same reproductive rights as women with means in this country who aren’t poor and who can afford to get an abortion either from their private health insurance or out of their own pockets. And they’re completely right about that, but that’s not the issue. This shouldn’t be a newsflash for anyone: low-income women simply don’t have the same freedom as middle or high income women in this country. And low-income Americans regardless of gender, or race or ethnicity don’t have the same freedom in America as middle or high-income Americans either. But that’s not unfair, that’s just life. You want to have a lot of freedom in America, you need to have the income to finance that freedom. That’s just how America has always worked and how it should always be.

Posted in Democratic Party | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Critical Past: Wendell Willkie- ‘Arrives in His Hometown And Formally Accepts The Republican Presidential Nomination’

Wendell Willkie arrives in his home town and formally accepts the Republ

Source:Critical Past– Liberal Republican Wendell Willie: accepting the 1940 GOP presidential nomination

Source:The New Democrat 

“Historic Stock Footage Archival and Vintage Video Clips in HD.

Wendell Willkie arrives in his home town and formally accepts the Republican Presidential nomination before the crowd.

Wendell Willkie arrives in his home town after being nominated as the Presidential candidate. Wendell Willkie in a car. A large crowd gathers to greet him. Crowd cheering and applauding. He stands on the podium and addresses the crowd. He formally accepts the Republican Presidential nomination before the crowd. Addressing the crowd, he states that the domestic and foreign policies of the New Deal is leading the nation into war. He endorses the draft for US defense and dares President Roosevelt to meet him for a public debate on questions vital to all Americans. Location: Elwood Indiana. Date: August 19, 1940.”

Source:Critical Past: Wendell Willkie- ‘Arrives in His Hometown And Formally Accepts The Republican Presidential Nomination’

By 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt had his New Deal passed through Congress and the Great Depression was over, but the devastating affects of it were still there and the people were still feeling it. Business investment and economic growth were still low and unemployment was still high. It wasn’t the New Deal that saved the American economy: it helped in alleviating pain of the Great Depression, but the economy still wasn’t back to anything near to what it was in 1928 before the stock market crash.

President Roosevelt, was a popular President, but there was a real case to be made against him and real room to run against him for President and offer a new direction for the country, which is what businessman Wendell Willkie who was a Liberal Republican offered in 1940. Liberal in the classical and real sense, not made up or stereotypical, big government, socialist sense. FDR, wasn’t a Socialist either, but his big, central, government approach government approach with his New Deal, was very different from Wendell was offering which was about more individualism private business investment, as apposed to FDR’s Federal Government investment approach.

The 1940 presidential election was an interesting election for multiple reasons: you had a popular President against a popular opponent. FDR, was a popular President, but Wendell Willkie managed about 45% of the popular vote which is more than Barry Goldwater in 1964 and President Jimmy Carter in 1980. Wendell with his 10 states won more than President Carter in 1980. It was also an an election where you had a Progressive Democrat versus a Liberal Republican. Willkie, was to the Left of FDR on civil rights and civil liberties. FDR, was to the Left of Wendell on economic policy. And they were similar on foreign policy and national security with both men being strong liberal internationalists and somewhat hawkish.

1940, represents a time in American politics where the country wasn’t so divided politically. When Liberals, were Liberals. Conservatives, were Conservatives. Progressives, were Progressives. Socialists, weren’t afraid to be Socialists. ( Unless they were in Hollywood ) Where Americans regardless of their political labels didn’t hate each other simply because of their politics which is how you can get a presidential election between a Franklin Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie, because their differences were about politics and policy. Not race, ethnicity, religion, or culture.

Posted in Wendell Willkie | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Classic Film and TV Cafe: Rick 29- ‘Murder One: The Sensational First Season’

murder one_ the sensational first season - Google Search (1)

Source:Classic Film & TV Cafe– Actor Daniel Benzali: as attorney Ted Hoffman

Source:The New Democrat 

“When wealthy philanthropist Richard Cross is arrested for the murder of his mistress’s 15-year-old sister, he secures the services of defense attorney Ted Hoffman. Within days, though, a mysterious woman comes forward to provide Cross (Stanley Tucci) with an alibi. He is released and the police quickly charge actor Neil Avedon with the homicide. When Cross pleads with Ted (Daniel Benzali) to defend Neil, the attorney accepts the case.”

Read the rest of this piece at :Classic Film & TV Cafe: Rick 29- ‘Murder One: The Sensational Season One’

 

Murder One Case 1 Opening Credits

Source:Apathy Monger: Murder One Season One Opening Credits– Actor J.C. McKenzie, was part of the team at Hoffman & Associates

“Murder One Season One Opening Credits”

murder one_ the sensational first season - Google Search

Source:Classic Film & TV Cafe– Actor Stanley Tucci: as Richard Cross

Just to give you little background about Murder One and the genre in Hollywood that it represented: in the late 1970s with superstar shows like Dallas, soap operas went prime time. Dallas with CBS, that ABC got into the prime time soap opera game with Dynasty. CBS, launched another prime time soap with Falcon Crest. NBC, with St. Elsewhere. ABC, in the mid and late 1980s with Thirty Something. Because of Generation X, shows like Beverly Hills 90210 and Melrose Place in the early 90s. And then prime time soaps just even bigger in the mid 90s with shows like NYPD Blue ( from ABC ) and then ER. ( From NBC )

Murder One, ( from ABC ) was different at least in the sense that it was a prime time soap opera dealing with the criminal justice system and that the show was almost exclusively from the point of the view of the defense team. When you saw the prosecutors, they were either in court, giving a press conference, or in communication with the defense team. And the first season of Murder One did have several other legal and criminal cases that Hoffman & Associates dealt with, but their biggest cases was the Neal Avdeon who was a Hollywood actor who was accused of killing his girlfriend.

By the midpoint of season one, Murder One was practically all about the Avedon case where the general partner of Hoffman & Associates Ted Hoffman, is completely tied up and basically has his life taken over by this one murder case and getting his client acquitted of the murder charge.

There are shows and series that seem to go on forever that I wish I had never heard of, but because they’re so popular, even though they’re so stupid where the main characters on the show are really only famous for getting into tense, heated, public arguments and fights. Where these people are basically just losers who can’t stay out of trouble. And of course I’m thinking of what’s called reality TV.

And then there are what I at least call cookie-cutter sitcoms where it’s hard to tell one of these shows from another, because they’re all basically about the same things: young to early middle age people, who aren’t married, no kids, live in lofts that are probably in New York and spend most of their time hanging out at coffee houses and places like that. And those shows go on forever, even though there’s really not much if any difference from one cookie-cutter sitcom to another other than the cast members are different, because that’s what young people are into.

Murder One, falls into a different category as a show that had a great cast, had great writers, that wasn’t like the other shows that it was competing with, but instead almost completely different; maybe only LA Law could you compare with Murder One and yet Murder One despite everything that it had going for it with the great background and depth to that show, it doesn’t make and is gone after season 2.

ABC and Steven Bochco made some fatal mistakes with Murder One: going up against ER on the same night and time slot during season one, which just killed the ratings of Murder One right off the bat. And then replacing Daniel Benzali who was perfect for the role of Ted Hoffman, with Anthony LaPaglia, who is a fine actor, but not someone you want as your lead actor in a big show like this. But Murder One, didn’t fail because it had cheesy writing, or a weak cast, weak directing, or anything like that, but of how it was managed with the tools that they had. It should’ve had its own time slot from episode one and let the show ride on its own.

Posted in Classic TV | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Economist: ‘What if Women Ruled The World?’- The World Would Be a Different Place?

The Economist - What if Women Ruled The World_ - Google Search

Source:The Economist– U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: Democratic Socialist, New York City 

Source:The New Democrat 

“Only 6.3% of all international leaders are women. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former Liberian president and Africa’s first elected female head of state, suggests ways to redress the balance.”

Source:The Economist: ‘What if Women Ruled The World?’

To sort of have fun with President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s comment about the world would be a better place if women ruled the world: if you’re a regular of the so-called reality TV series Housewives, you might not think the world would be a safer place if women ruled the world. Most of the time they’re either arguing, swearing at each other, even physically fighting and throwing things at each other. Which might be the only reason why those shows are so popular with all the catfighting. A good so-called reality TV show makes the WWE look like a golf match: way too quiet and peaceful.

As far as women ruling the world and to take a more serious look at this: ( for a change ) the only way to achieve power in America or anywhere else in the world, is to achieve power. Which I know sort of sounds like Captain Obvious on his best day, but anything that’s worth doing is worth working for. You don’t achieve power in America or anywhere else by sitting at home or at some coffee house staring at your phone and hoping someone else does it for you. But instead you have to enter the free market of ideas ( also known as liberal democracy ) and put yourself out there and make to case to anyone who will hear you why you’re the most qualified candidate out there and should hold that office, instead of the man you are running against or perhaps another woman that you might be running against.

Some might argue ( like radical feminists ) that it’s hard for women to run office because of sexism and all the negative stereotypes women especially female candidates get about being tough and not seeming feminine enough and all of that: try making that case to Dr. Martin L. King and his civil rights movement of the 1960s: what if Dr. King believed that his civil rights movement wasn’t worth it because of all the violence and racism that he and his movement would face from those racist, Neo-Confederate state government’s in the South and decided: “the hell with it, this is not worth it.” You think America and the world would be different if women were in charge: imagine how different America would be if the African-American community was satisfied with living as second-class citizens and in some cases not even treated like citizens at all.

I realize the women’s movement ( whatever that is supposed to be today ) is not an exact parallel to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, but there are similarities in as far as what both movements were up against from the outset. And in the civil rights case and to a large extent with a lot of female candidates and female politicians today, a lot of these people knew that from the outset as well and decided that it was worth it and that just because they’re female that doesn’t make them any less qualified to hold public office than their male counterparts. Which is how 70 or more women get elected to Congress last year with most of those women getting elected to the House. ( You want more female Senators, they have to run for office first )

And I just get back to my first serious point to close this: anything in life regardless of which country it is that’s worth achieving in life is worth working for. Even if there are a lot of obstacles that are thrown at you and even unfair obstacles: like people being judged simply by their race, ethnicity, gender, etc. And a lot of times you need those thoroughbreds from the outset who don’t completely throw caution to the wind, but knows exactly what’s in front of them and takes it on anyway with a game plan to accomplish their goals. You don’t win games by sitting on the sidelines. And you don’t win elections and get elected by sitting at home.

Posted in The Economist | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment