Neocon and Liberal Wet Dreams, Hollywood Style

It is interesting to watch television shows these days, as the production values have gone way up because Hollywood realizes it is content that is indeed king. Because of all the outlets available and the future not so much being people tuning into a channel but rather seeking out how to watch a specific show or movie (whether it's downloaded, streamed to computer or television, etc). This is a great example of capitalism at work, which Hollywood, despite it's bashing, not only lives, but loves.

So what do I mean by Hollywood Wet Dreams? Take 24. When the show first came out, it was revolutionary, and it's storyline was great (and actually realistic, since Jack was simply preventing an assassination attempt, not saving the world). Now the show is a neocon wet dream, perpetrating the myth that terrorists are around every corner (and just so happens that Jack is always there too, what a shocking surprise). In addition, Jack must torture these folks, or we'll all be blown to bits, which makes folks like Rush giddy and probably give him wood every Monday night. (See, maybe he doesn't need the pills then).

I'm sure there are other neocon wet dream shows on the air, I'm just not familiar with any other ones. But finding liberal wet dreams is as easy as pie. Take Weeds, which I like, and while some could say it is even a Libertarian wet dream show since it portrays a suburban soccer mom as a weed-dealing hot shot, all you have to do is watch it about 10 minutes to see the digs at so many other forms of anything Republican. If you know me, you know that I'm not a Republican, but if this show was the only thing someone watched, the R's would be considered jokes.

The latest liberal wet dream show I've been watching lately is 'Damages,' on FX. FX Networks is quickly becoming one of the best as far as the quality of the programming. "The Shield" was the best cop-drama series ever made, if I was casting the sole vote. "Rescue Me" starring Libertarian Dennis Leary is another fantastic show, and adding "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," and the rest keep drawing me back. They also do a fantastic job of using talent from previous shows for their new ones, which helps keep their audience as they all recognize a familiar face. While I haven't seen "Archer" or "Justified" yet, I have them on my list to check out. "Sons of Anarchy" wasn't my cup of tea, but it was very well done. However, I have watched "Damages," the edgy lawyer drama starring Glenn Close. And I have moved this show up to the top of the liberal wet dream shows in existence. I can't get through one episode without at least 3 jabs at conservative politics and/or at capitalism. Of course, like most of the creative world, while they rely on true capitalism for their wealth, what they claim to rail against as capitalistic isn't even close. Maybe one of these days, someone will be able to explain to some of these folks that it's corporatism that they are slamming, heck, even Michael Moore, when confronted about this question, admitted it (then quickly forgot it). But "Damages" is almost comical in it's defense of everything bleeding-heart, from global warming to Reaganonmics to that dreaded of all things, corporate greed. I think everyone who runs a corporation in this show is evil.

On a side note, we have just received an option for a television series, so is this a chance to put a Libertarian wet dream on the air? Probably not, as we don't expect to have the final say, but I'll be sure to do my best to at least explain the difference between capitalism and corporatism when I get the chance.

Why Medical Marijuana is Wrong But Smoking it is a Right

Is medical marijuana the newest oxymoron? I mean, can anyone with a straight face honestly tell me that 40,000 people (so far) in Colorado are in such pain or are so depressed that they need this alternative medication to cope? Are there really studies that prove its effectiveness? And seriously, how can smoking something actually be healthy?

But the most important question we should be asking is why do we have to ask for permission in the first place?

This is simply a prime example of yet another political debate not focusing on the most important issue, and that issue is property rights. Without property rights, freedom is logically impossible. You may ask, “How can that be?” Well, plain and simple, most people would agree that our most important property is our bodies. We make our living by trading our bodies, in the form of production, for money and other goods, such as food, cars, a roof over our heads, etc. I could get into the entire taxation thing being a hideous violation of our property rights, but I too need to focus. The fact that we are not allowed to put whatever we want into our own bodies proves the fact that we are not as free as we think we are. Why do we need to get permission from government (and pay for that permission to boot) to grow, smoke, eat or somehow digest marijuana?

I’ve heard the many arguments for outlawing it, and none of them make any sense if one were to actually look below the surface. “People who do drugs drive and cause accidents, or druggies rob others to support their habit.” In addition to the obvious delusion – that not all people who do drugs commit those crimes – how about the less obvious one, that those things are already crimes! If someone violates another person’s property rights, whether that is via fraud, robbery, rape, murder, or a physical beating, then they should be punished accordingly. I mean, should someone feel less violated if the mugger is not high?

It should be noted that property rights were the most important issue for the Founding Fathers. It wasn’t freedom of religion or freedom of speech or the right to carry a gun, because those are all subsets of property rights.

And what also seems to be lost in today’s America, we do not get property rights from politicians, but rather we were born, some even say conceived, with these natural rights from God, or a higher power. So how about we stop pretending we are sick or depressed and begging for permission, and start focusing on what is important, and that is the freedom to make our own decisions.

Constitution & Original Intent... When Convenient Part 1

I recently read that John McCain claimed the founding fathers didn't intend to not allow someone born in an American territory (in McCain's case, Panama) because his father was in the military to run for President.

Note to John: The founding fathers also didn't intend for us to get involved in foreign affairs (other than trading), to have a central bank, to tax income, to regulate everything under the sun, nor for our federal government to be filled with a litany of alphabet soup bureaucracies trying to manage every aspect of our lives.

I for one would be willing to give McCain his point if we could have ours.

Will the Revolution Continue?

It would be great if Dr. Robert Paul runs for office using the momentum of his father's name. When we look back at history, we see that movements, both good ones and bad, took time. A good example of a bad movement is the Whig Party, who pushed for a strong central government (and national bank) for 40 years before the now renamed Republican Party, brought Abe Lincoln into power.

Could This Be the Reason For Underwater Cable Cuts?

So Iran is planning to take a stand and not accept the dollar any more. Five underwater communication cables are cut in less than 2 weeks cutting off more than 75% of communications in Iran (but not US controlled Iraq). Hmmmm.

Roger Clemens and Steroids

Listening to Roger Clemens' press conference today (with phone conversation with McNamara), as well as yesterday on 60 Minutes, I don't have any doubt that he is innocent. But the reason for this posting is how distorted our system is today. We are now guilty until proven innocent. If I was Clemens, I'd tell Congress to screw themselves, and move away from baseball. These idiotic sports reporters are just that -- idiots.

Another question. Why is Congress involved in this? This is just a small part of the ridiculous and unconstitutional (on federal level) War on Drugs.

RP in NH

I'm predicting 15% for Paul and third place in New Hampshire. Poor Rudy, he continues to think 'Ron's logic is faulty,' but apparently American's don't.

Howard Stern Stumps for Paul

Wonder if he'll get him on the show?

Gulf of Tonkin 2008

I've been warning about this for more than a year, and they are looking for anything to whip up the frenzy needed to launch an attack on Iran.

I'm curious on knowing more about the tie between a potential attack on Iran, the one on Iraq and the dollar. Saddam had threatened to not accept the dollar anymore for oil, and we attacked him. Now Iran is threatening the same thing, and we are just one of these 'incidents' away from getting in a war (undeclared of course) with them. Look for the sheeple on the Democratic aisle to follow right along for fear of being labeled unpatriotic.

Paul interviewed by Newsweek on Religion

What is not to like about this humble man?

Ron Paul declared Victor

Do You Believe in Miracles?

Paul is now up to 8% nationally according to the latest poll from Rasmussen.

"In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Mike Huckabee retains a three-point edge with support from 21% of Likely Republican Primary Voters nationwide while Rudy Giuliani is the top choice for 18%. Mitt Romney earns 12% while Fred Thompson and John McCain each attract 11% (see recent daily numbers). Five candidates are within ten points of the lead and all five could conceivably become the party’s eventual nominee. Ron Paul is the only other candidate with measurable support and he currently attracts 8% of Likely Republican Primary voters nationwide."

As Al Michaels screamed in 1980 from Lake Placid, "Do You Believe in Miracles?" Yes Al, we do.

Ron Paul Christmas