Politics and Prose: Dr. Eric Motley- Interviewing Elaine Pagels: ‘Why Religion’

42606
Source:Politics and Prose– Dr. Eric Motley, interviewing author Elaine Pagels at Politics and Prose in Washington 

Source:The Daily Review

As someone who is Agnostic and proud of it who believes in reason, science, facts, and only has faith in people, things, institutions that I trust based on the evidence that I’ve seen from being around them and talking to them, I can actually see why people would be attracted in religion. As someone who believes in the First Amendment which includes the Freedom of Religion in America, ( sorry Hippies, I’m not spiritualist and I’m not a Communist either ) I can see why people would want religion, be involved in America, and even need it. I guess the difference between an Agnostic and an Atheist, especially a fundamentalist Atheist ( and yes, there is such a thing ) like a Communist to use as an example.

73400
Source:Good Reads– From author Elaine Pagels 

This is not an official definition, but that might only be because there isn’t any official definition of religion, but my personal definition of religion is basically basic set of moral values that people believe and follow, as well as the belief in God. Now, depending on what religion you are a member of determines what moral values that you believe in and follow that helps you in your life. I can easily see how people can get positive benefits from being a part of a religion and get positive benefits from attending church and listening to their religious leader every week give a sermon, especially when they’re going through rough times and need help getting through those tough times. Even though religion is not for me and I prefer to use evidence and reason to get through those tough times in our lives.

79348
Source:C-SPAN– Author Elaine Pagels, on C-SPAN 

Elaine Pagels, lost both her son and husband in the span of a year back in 1987-88, apparently wasn’t very religious before those tragedies in her life, but found religion after that and I can understand someone who goes through those tragedies especially in such a short period of time would feel the need to get help from religion and learn about that and try to figure out for themselves why they’re being put through those tragedies one following by another. Religion, has been used by alcoholics to get over their alcoholism. It’s been used to help career criminals who are doing long-term prison sentences get their life going on a positive track so once they’re finally out of prison they can become positive members of their community once they’re free. As much as I might hate religious fundamentalism in all forms, ( and trust me, I do ) people should also understand and beware of the positive aspects of religious life as well.

Politics and Prose: Dr. Eric Motley- Interviewing Elaine Pagels: ‘Why Religion’

Claudia Christian: On Making It In Hollywood

23002
Source:Quote Parrot– A very candid Claudia Christian

Source:The Daily Review

“Who is Claudia Christian?
An American actress, writer, singer, musician, and director, best known for her role as Commander Susan Ivanova on the science fiction television series Babylon 5.”

From Quote Tank

45881
Source:Quote Tank– Claudia Christian, on staying busy.

Not all actors and actresses, but a lot of them and apparently Claudia Christian is a perfect example of this, but before they become stars they have bills to pay and have to support themselves. Especially if they already have kids and their spouse isn’t rich yet either. Just because you haven’t heard of a certain actor because become stars later in their careers, doesn’t mean they just suddenly appear out of nowhere or were sent down form Planet Venus or some other planet to become a star in Hollywood.

A lot of actors before they became stars were already veteran actors and actresses. Dennis Haysbert, who played the President on 24, is a perfect example of that. He was already in his mid 40s when he got that role, but had already had big acting credits like appearing in Heat in 1995. George Clooney, was 33 when he became a star on ER, but had already been acting and supporting himself for 10 years before that.

And because all actors and actresses have to work to support themselves even if they’re not stars yet, they have to go where the money is and where they can get roles. Even if that means doing movies that a few years down the line after they’ve already made it look ridiculous to them. Thomas Howell, who became a star in the movie The Outsiders, has a laundry list of b-movies on his resume, because those were the only parts he could get. Acting on Impulse, from 1993 which is actually a pretty good movie, but almost no one has ever heard of it.

So actors and actresses have to keep working at least until they become stars and have some financial security. 30 years ago or so almost ten years before he got the part on ER and was still on The Facts of Life, George Clooney was in a movie called something like The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Flies. If you haven’t heard of that movie, you’re on a long waisting list of people who want to get into an overcrowded club of people who’ve also have never heard of that movie. But these are the roles that let’s say developing actors and actresses and prices that these people will pay to become a star in Hollywood and never have to worry about getting work again and be able to get quality roles in movies and on TV.

As far as Claudia Christian’s career, she’s been acting since 1984, but didn’t didn’t get the Babylon Five role until 1996 which made her a star in Hollywood. She made guest appearances on A-Team back in the mid 80s, appeared on the soap opera Dallas during that period, The Hidden in 1987, The Chase in 1994, which were al great roles for her, but also on that same resume before Babylon, Maniac Cop 2, Hexed, and a lot of other b if not c-movies that almost no one has even heard of, but kept her busy and working in Hollywood and gave major directors and producers a chance to see her so when a great part came around for her they would know about her and she would be ready for it. B-movies and b-roles are the prices that people pay to make it in Hollywood and Claudia Christian is just one example of that.

Susan Hayward: The Working Girl

76959
Source:AZ Quotes– Susan Hayward, on reaching the mountaintop of Hollywood

Source:The Daily Review

There are a lot of rags to riches success stories in America which is one thing that makes America great as well as exceptional. America tends to get stereotyped as a rich country that’s dominated by rich people who control so much of the country’s wealth and that all Americans are rich. And if you’re from a third world country and grew up poor before you came to America, you might believe that as well at least before you get to America.

But the fact is most Americans aren’t wealthy. Most of us aren’t poor either, but a lot of come from either middle class or working class families which is the overwhelming majority of Americans. Americans who aren’t poor or who are hungry, but struggle to survive, work hard, to pay their bills. Can’t afford to send their kids to college which means their kids have to work through college or get student loans, or both especially if they’re not on scholarship.

Susan Hayward growing up in New York City in the 1920s and 30s didn’t even have it that great. She came literally from nothing where her parents couldn’t afford to feed all of their kids at the same time. Sometimes couldn’t afford to even do laundry, couldn’t replace shoes and other clothing that were falling apart. What Susan Hayward did have going for her growing up and as a very young woman was that she hated poverty and wanted to escape it. As well as a talent and desire to succeed that would allow to her live well for the rest of her life.

When I think of Susan Hayward, I think of President Richard Nixon and his background growing in rural and poor California in the 1920s when a lot of America was actually doing very well economically, but where most of that economic wealth was in big cities like Boston, New York, Chicago, and other big cities not in rural California hundreds of miles out of Los Angeles. I think of President Nixon giving his farewell address where he says, “only when you’ve been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain.” President Richard Nixon from August, 1974 the day he left the White House after resigning the presidency, because of is involvement in the Watergate coverup.

Susan Hayward, was able to reach the mountaintop in Hollywood and to go down as not just one of the greatest actresses in her generation, but who ever worked in Hollywood because she grew up in the deepest valley in America. And to know what it was like to live on the bottom not knowing where your next meal was coming from and would you even have a home the next month. Not that I would recommend poverty to anyone, but when you have nothing is does teach you a few positive things like how important hard work and success are and what it means to earn what you get. As well as always knowing at least in the back of your head what it’s like to be poor and to know that you never want to live that way again. Susan Hayward, is a great rags to riches story who came from nothing to become one of the best actresses that America have ever known and a story that we should all celebrate.

84566
Source:Quote Tank: Susan Hayward Quotes– One of Susan Hayward’s movies

Vanity Fair: How NYC’s Richest Socialites Were Scammed By Anna Delvey

40186
Source:Vanity Fair– Great question!

Source:The Daily Review

If you’re familiar with The Billionaire Boys Club that was lead by Joe Hunt in the early and mid 1980s that was based on Los Angeles, the Anna Delvey story should sound familiar. Except that Anna Delvey was not an investor not even a fake investor like the BBC and Delvey hasn’t murdered and spending the rest of her life in prison. What’s she’s apparently guilty of is scamming rich New Yorkers out of their money. Looks like she was supporting herself by just hanging out and partying with rich New Yorkers. With not a real job or income of her own.

27284
Source:The Cut– Anna Delvey

What she does have in common with Joe Hunt and the BBC is this need to be seen with what’s known as the beautiful people. Very attractive, sexy successful, hip yuppies in New York who have the best of everything when it comes to material. The best looking and most expensive clothing, best homes, cars, go to the best restaurants, hang out and party with the most popular people, as is she’s part of this crowd and his also a very successful yuppie in New York as well. When the fact the only thing she has in common with these people is a need to be seen living this lifestyle with these people. But someone on her own would struggle to pay for gas in her car and pay for a motel room at the Motel Six or some other place. Perhaps Bob’s Motel and Diner in New Brunswick, New Jersey or whatever the location.

18018
Source:The Cut– Anna Delvey on the right and a friend?

The main problem that Ann Delvey had is that she had first class expensive taste, but with an income that couldn’t even pay for a coach seat. The way she paid for her first class lifestyle was by convincing some I guess some seriously gullible New Yorkers that she was also very successful and wealthy on her own. Perhaps these people believe in Santa Clause as well and not sure about who murdered President John Kennedy. You would think people for their educational and professional backgrounds, would be smart enough to not get fooled by someone like this. And just see her as a wannabe celebrity party girl, groupie ( to use another term ) and just blow her off, but that didn’t happen here.

Vanity Fair: How NYC’s Richest Socialites Were Scammed By Anna Delvey

Missy Logo: The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- Ann-Margret: June 16th, 1978

74339
Source: Missy Logo– Swedish and Hollywood Goddess Ann-Margret, on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson in 1978

Source: The Daily Review

“JOHNNY CARSON INTERVIEW ANN MARGRET Jun 16 1978”

From Missy Logo

Just to talk about Ann-Margret: she was so adorable and that really includes everything about her, but in this case especially it was her voice that caught my attention. She has this very sweet soft voice that reminds me a lot of Elizabeth Taylor as far as how she speaks to people. Which I’m sure was driving Johnny Carson crazy ( at least inside ) with him thinking something like: “she’s too cute to also be this sexy.” But that is Ann-Margret who is this very sweet, adorable, soft, and yet sexy and gorgeous woman. Very similar to Raquel Welch or Rita Hayworth from a previous era.

As far as The Cheap Detective: it could’ve been called The Cheap Movie as well. Not a great movie, but with a great cast including Ann-Margret, but Louise Fletcher, Stockard Channing, ( talking about beautiful, adorable women ) Peter Falk who is the star of the movie and someone who if anything might have been even funnier than Johnny Carson, even though they would’ve made a great contest. It’s a pretty funny movie similar to Columbo as far as the humor and funny people in it, but this is not one of Humphrey Bogart’s great film noir humorous movies, but more like play on those movies.

 

Fred Flix: Old Commercials That Would Be Politically Incorrect Today

34807
Source: Fred Flix– Funny face, LOL! 

Source: The Daily Review

The flat tire commercial where it’s automatically assumed that the woman can’t change a tire, certainly wouldn’t play today. Back in 1955 or the ( the Utopia for the Christian-Right ) it was consider unfeminine for women to be involved in any form for physical work that’s traditionally done by men. And since gays were still living in the closet including lesbians, gay masculine women weren’t even around at least in public, so no woman back then was expected to do physical manly work. ( To make a politically incorrect joke ) So no changing the flat tires on the cars, or fixing appliances, home improvement, working on cars, construction work, nothing that would be considered manly. Women were expected to stay away from all of those activities in America.

96065
Source: Jonathan East– Warning for people who hate free speech 

The commercial with the beautiful sexy women that looks like it came out in the late 1970s just from the color picture and how the hair and everything else looked, as a straight man I don’t have any problems with that commercial. I could see why radical feminists would have a problem with it because they would view it as sexual exploitation. Taking advantage of women’s sex appeal and beauty. But they probably see professional cheerleader squads as sexist as well even though none of these women are expected to participate in any of these activities. I could see why a commercial like that wouldn’t play in San Francisco or New York or Boston, but don’t know why it would be a problem anywhere else in the country.

65031
Source: EBay– Not for people who hate free speech 

The cigarette and tobacco commercials, are not politically incorrect in anyway, because they’re simply not offensive to anyone. The problems that they have with especially chewing tobacco is that tobacco and even tobacco cigarets are so unpopular today because so many Americans at least now know what tobacco does to you and the health risks that come from it. Tobacco unlike alcohol which is still very popular is becoming taboo in America. Even smokers won’t smoke in their homes anymore especially if they have kids or if their spouse doesn’t like tobacco. But back in lets say 1975 or whenever that commercial came out practically every American was smoking. You almost had to back in the 1970s to be considered cool or groovy, far out, hip, whatever the hip term was then.

The commercial with the office secretary, kind of looks sexist to me, but in a funny way. Apparently the woman in the commercial is looking for a lunch date with her boss ( of all people ) and believes she can get that simply by wearing the right perfume or deodorant. Sort of implying that she’s trying to move up in the company by being nice to her boss. If that commercial came out 10-15 years later or was part of a sitcom from let’s say 1975-79 or even later, the commercial would’ve implied that the woman was trying to sleep her way to the top. I would see even as a hard core supporter for free speech who believes in almost no limits on it why that commercial could be seen as sexist.

We just live in a very different world now as we did in 1955. In some ways free speech and personal freedom is even more popular now where women aren’t expected to stay home and where couples aren’t expected to get married before they move in together or have sex, or even have kids together. But in other ways even though our constitutional right to free speech is just as strong as it was 60-65 years ago, it’s become less popular with young people. Who believe anyone who isn’t a straight, male, Christian, Caucasian, has some artificial right not to be offended. Which of course is obviously not true, but you wouldn’t know that from our current pop culture and even political culture. One of the reasons why Donald Trump is President of the United States, because you have millions of Americans probably tens of millions who are fed up with political correctness.

Fred Flix: Olf Commercial That Would Be Politically Incorrect Today

Politics and Prose: Jonathan Martin Interviewing Denis Leary- ‘Why We Don’t Suck’

Attachment-1-1453
Source: Politics and Prose

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I haven’t read Denis Leary’s book so I can’t get you any real analysis of it whatsoever. But I was alive, conscience, and in America, for the entire time in 2016. Except when I wasn’t sleeping, which is any longer than the average American sleeps. And I can tell you about Suck Bowl 2016 (which is what I call the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton presidential election) and why it was the worst presidential election we’ve ever seen.

I voted for Hillary Clinton for president and would do again million straight times, if her opponent is Donald Trump or anyone else who is as unqualified to even be a back benching member of the House of Representatives, let alone President of the United States. Ot is as immature, thin skinned, unread, lacking in intelligence, knowledge, and curiosity about how the U.S. Government works, narcissistic, dishonest, as a Donald Trump or anyone else with those same characteristics. That are the only reasons why I voted for her.

Not because I’m a fan of Hillary Clinton. I basically see her as a well-meaning intelligent person, who wants to do a good job. And if it wasn’t for this Thanksgiving grocery shopping list of reasons why I don’t like her, I could vote for her because I believe in her and believe she would do a great job. We’re talking about a major presidential nominee who has been thinking about being President of the United States, at least since she was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2001, and yet didn’t seem to have any vision of why she should be President and what her campaign was about. Other than that she’s a well-educated, rich yuppie New Yorker, who is also a feminist and a Democrat. Which is why the rich cool people should vote for her. And that she’s also a woman and would be the worst female President of the United States. Well, most of the rich cool people did vote for Hillary and she still lost states that no Democrat has lost since 1988. Pennsylvania and Michigan.

So you have the baggage of Hillary Clinton. Well some of the baggage. How about her lack of candor and genuineness and ability to make a statement that doesn’t sound like it was poll tested or that some who works for her told her to say. Which killed her in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, probably Florida as well, states where she was heavily favored going in. What those voters saw in Donald Trump was at least someone who seems to say what he thinks, at least at the time. Even if he changes his position five minutes later after hearing what Breitbart or some other Far-Right publication or organization thinks about it. But Trump came off as real and says what’s on his mind. Instead of someone who seems to say whatever the polls are telling him are popular at the time.

This is why I call the 2016 presidential election Suck Bowl 2016. Perhaps the the two worst presidential candidates you could imagine running against each other. One, who might be a good public servant, but who is a horrible politician at least in the sense that she lacks any ability to communicate a vision for the country and what her presidency would be like and why people should vote for her. Against a natural politician at least in the sense of someone who can bring voters behind him and be able to speak to them. But who is a horrible public servant simply because he doesn’t believe in public service. His idea of service is serving himself. And some people are still wondering why Americans at least say they hate American politics and don’t like American politicians.

Politics and Prose: Jonathan Martin Interviewing Denis Leary- “Why We Don’t Suck”

The Independent Institute: P.J. O’Rourke- The Outlook: How Things Look From Here

Attachment-1-1367
Source: The Independent Institute

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

What Socialists don’t like about Libertarians and libertarianism, is that Libertarians have this inane idea (according to Socialists) that people should be allowed to make a good living and then be able to live off of those rewards. The fruits of their labor, to sound like a cheeseball.

What the Christian-Right and now Christian-Nationalists (who voted for Donald Trump) don’t like about Libertarians and libertarianism is that Libertarians have this crazy idea (according to the Christian-Right) that people have property rights and that extends to their homes and their bodies. And that people should be able to live their own lives as they see fit, short of hurting innocent people. Even if that offends the religious and moral values of the Christian-Right.

What I don’t like about the Libertarian-Right, well their a few things and I guess I could name them all. But they claim to be against big government and government interference and yet they tend to sound more like they’re anti-government all together. That they see America as some deserted island where there’s almost no evidence of life and all of these people show up all the sudden and over the years and create a new society short of having any government.

The so-called Anarcho-Libertarians, seem to believe that arresting suspects as part of a criminal investigation, is somehow a form of kidnapping. That if someone wrongs you its up to that person to get justice for themselves. Instead of relying on a law enforcement department to handle that for you. Because if we have public law enforcement and government, that would require taxes to fund those agencies. That putting convicted murderers, to use as an example who are actually guilty of murdering the people they were convicted for, that putting them in prison for their crimes, somehow violated the murderer’s rights. Someone who believes that comes from another planet and perhaps is just on Earth for a visit. Perhaps to see what the real world looks like.

Conservative-Libertarians like the Barry Goldwater’s from back in the day, Senator Rand Paul and a few others in Congress today, P.J. O’Rourke, those Libertarians I can respect, because they’re not Anarchists, but Libertarians. They want a government limited to only doing for the people what we can’t do for ourselves. And not messing around in other countries affairs. And also they sound like sane intelligent people who base their politics from this crazy word called reason. And not sounding like escaped mental patients, who’ve been on nothing but marijuana and alcohol, since they fled from the institution.

And I could also talk about how conspiratorial Libertarians tend to be and how they resemble the Socialist-Left in America and how dovish they are and blaming Lyndon Johnson for the JFK assassination. Libertarians are supposed to hate Socialists and socialism, and yet they sleep in the same bed at the same time with Socialists when arguing about all of these conspiracy theories. Like the JFK assassination, but arguing that 9/11 was an inside job and I could go on. Just look at Alex Jones website if you want more.

Or the antisemitism and even racism that Libertarians have expressed against non-Europeans in America and how now a faction of the Libertarian-Right is now part of the Alt-Right. The Stefan Molyneaux’s and others who claim to be Libertarians, but have argued that immigration is somehow a threat to the European-American culture. As well as some Libertarians arguing at least in the past and again something they have in common with the Socialist-Left in America and people like socialist author and writer Noam Chomsky, that America is largest terrorist state in the world and perhaps the only international terrorist organization in the world.

As a Liberal I’m all about (to use a cliche from the 2000s) getting and keeping big government out of my wallets and bedroom. The whole notion of being an adult (who is not currently incarcerated) is that you get to make your own personal and economic decisions, but then have to deal with the consequences of our actions. We don’t need a national, or even state, or local, religious leader or nanny statist, babysitting free adults.

So again, I respect the Rand Paul’s Jeff Flake’s, Ron Johnson’s, Justin Amash’s, and others in Congress. These are all Republicans by the way in the Senate and House. But the Alt-Right that is part of the Libertarian-Right and the anarcho wing of the Libertarian-Right, they can sound just as crazy as the Socialist-Left. Perhaps as if they did time with them in an institution. And when the crazies become the faces of your movement, your movement loses credibility and the ability to be taken seriously in American politics.

The Independent Institute: P.J. O’Rourke- The Outlook: How Things Look From Here

A&E: Naomi Ekperigin- Infamous Killers: David Berkowitz- The Son of Sam

Attachment-1-1258
Source: A&E

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I doubt I’m the only person who has done this but for the last 10-20 years or so but I’ve been wondering why a somewhat normal seeming man like David Berkowitz would decide to go out and simply murder people in New York City or anywhere else. Not to look for justification for those murders and of course there are no justifiable murders. Murder by definition- the intentional taking of innocent human life by definition is a crime. The worst crime you could commit against anyone. Calling a murder justifiable would be like calling a cheeseburger a hot dog, a slice of pizza a peanut butter sandwich. Its simply not believable on its face.

But I’ve been wanting to know why would a somewhat innocent looking and normal intelligent man who had a good job and was able to support himself even if he was somewhat lonely and isolated, why would this person go out and decide to murder as many 10-20 innocent people and perhaps more. What would drive a normal productive man to go out and murder all of those innocent people for no apparent reason and why after being found sane and able to stand trial for his murders how would a serial murderer like David Berkowitz (the self-proclaim Son of Sam) avoid the death penalty. The death penalty is for people who murder multiple people and get some pleasure from that.

Again, this doesn’t justify what David Berkowitz did and I’ not anti-military or even anti-war, but David Berkowitz joined the U.S. Army right after high school in the early 1970s and discovered early on that he was very good with guns. He wasn’t even in the Vietnam War but instead was sent to South Korea to join the forces there that was protecting the South from Communist North Korea. I believe Berkowitz discovered that he was good with guns and good at shooting people and perhaps even discovered that he enjoyed doing it. He gets an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army in 1974 and comes back to New York City where he grew up in the 1950s and 1960s and discovers that he’s alone and doesn’t fit in where he grew up.

What the Son of Sam means to me and I’m obviously not David Berkowitz’s biographer, is that he saw himself as the Son of Uncle Sam. This mythical character that is supposed to represent the U.S. Government and generally what most people believe and I’m one of them, represents what big government looks like in America. Americans who hate high taxes and over centralization of government, the War on Drugs, invasion of privacy, to use as examples. Not to say that Berkowitz hates big government, but I believe he saw it as his duty and was trained to murder people on the behalf of Uncle Sam as what he called himself The Son of Sam. Which is my little theory of why David Berkowitz did what he did.

A&E: Naomi Ekperigin- Infamous Killers: David Berkowitz- The Son of Sam

Vanity Fair: David Friend- Monica Lewinsky Opens Up About The Year That Changed Politics & Her Life Forever

Attachment-1-1166
Source: Vanity Fair

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Looking back at it now twenty years later (think about that for a second) the difference between the 1960s especially the early 1960s with President John F. Kennedy and the 1990s with President William J. Clinton, has to do with the internet age and media culture. The personal scandals that Bill Clinton was involved both real and fake in the 1980s and 1990s, aren’t that different in seriousness from the real scandals that President John Kennedy was involved with in the early 1960s.

President Clinton, had a short-term affair with a White House intern. President Kennedy, had affairs with mob girlfriends, women who were still involved with their mobster boyfriends and would then tell those men about their involvement with President Kennedy. Judith Campbell was one of President Kennedy’s White House girlfriends. She was Italian mobster’s Sam Giacana’s girlfriend as well. Bill Clinton while as Governor of Arkansas in the 1970s and 1980s, had an extra marital affair with former model and now writer Gennifer Flowers. Jack Kennedy when he was Senator Kennedy in the 1950s and after he married his wife Jackie, had multiple affairs with multiple women, which continued while he was President in the early 1960s.

So what’s the difference between the affairs that Jack Kennedy had in the 1960s and the affairs that Governor and later President Bill Clinton had in the 1980s and 1990s? Only one difference really which is the media.

If you wanted to watch TV back in lets say 1963, you had three channels to choose from. In some big markets maybe there would be an independent station that wasn’t affiliated with CBS, NBC, or ABC. PBS didn’t even come around until the late 1960s. Forget about satellite, there wasn’t even cable. You wanted to read a newspaper of magazine, you had to subscribe to one and it would be mailed to you physically, not electronically and you would probably get it once a week. Same thing with a newspaper but it would be sent to you everyday. Or I guess you could actually leave the cocoon of your house and get some fresh air and go down to your local convenient store and pick up a magazine or newspaper.

You could also get news on the radio and have serval choices there. Cable TV and satellite, didn’t come around until the mid 1970s. And probably wasn’t universal until the mid or late 1980s. The internet, what the hell is that back in 1963. That didn’t come around until the early 1990s and wasn’t mainstream until 1995. Smartphones unless you include Blackberrys, have only been around since 2007.

My point here is (and yes I have a point) is the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton affair of the mid and late 1990s, was not new at least as far as how serious it was. Yes, both people especially President Bill Clinton who is old enough to be Monica’s father and of course was married, but then the fact that he’s President of the United States having a White House affair with a 20 somethingWhite House intern, showed horrible judgment here and have been paying a price for it ever since. The difference being is that we knew about everything that Bill Clinton was involved with by late 1991 and certainly into 1992 and for his whole presidency, because of new technology and the information age.

No longer just network news, radio, and the newspapers. Not just 24 hour news networks, but online publications (that we call blogs today) Americans simply having the ability to find out everything that they wanted to find out whenever they wanted to by only having a laptop or desktop, or a smartphone. As well as a new media culture that instead is run by lets gets the truth before we put it out, even if that takes longer, is now about having to get something out there before their competitors do, or it will cost them money. Especially ratings and advertising. Not sure that attitude has dominated network news as much as cable news and online publications, but others probably know that better than me.

Not saying the Clinton-Lewinsky affair wasn’t serious and shouldn’t have been paid attention to. How serious it was and what should’ve been the consequences for it, are really up to the people involved especially the people who were directly hurt by it. Most notably Bill Clinton’t wife and daughter. And to a certain extent President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky herself. Not by some religious cult thats from the 1950s and got caught in some Star Trek time warp and suddenly finding themselves living in the 1990s and deciding that since they’re now in the 90s that they’re going to not only bring their lifestyle and culture with them, but try to force every other American to live like them. And of course I’m referring to the Clinton haters that Hillary Clinton correctly labeled the vast right-wing conspiracy.

My point is what happened between Bill and Monica, is not much more serious and consequential if at all to the political and sexual affairs of the 1960s. What made Bill and Monica and different is the time and technology in which their affair happened.

Attachment-1-1165
Source: TED Monica Lewinsky: The Price of Shame