(Television History and Trivia)
Victor Edward Swanson,
RULES OF USE
The material provided on this page is a service of Victor Swanson and The Hologlobe Press. The material may be used freely by a person, if the person does not use the material for commercial purposes. The material may be used by persons employed in the media, such as staffers of radio stations, but persons employed in the media must announce that the material has been taken from the Web site of The Hologlobe Press, the main Internet address to which is www.hologlobepress.com. Of course, the material is provided for fun or to teach.
- - - T.H.A.T., Edition No. 174 - - -
For something different as a start, this edition of Television History and Trivia begins with my monthly segment entitled Looking at the Movies, which is like an umbrella title for the showing of movies on television. Looking at the Movies showcases theatrical movies that were shown on television stations in the Detroit area in the early days of television in Detroit, usually between February 1948 and January 1954 (though I do sometimes go a bit beyond 1954 if I put CKLW-TV into the picture--CKLW-TV did not exist in the Detroit-television-viewing area between 1948 and January 1954). For this edition of Looking at the Movies, the presentation is a movie made in England. Between May 1953 and January 1954, WXYZ-TV, Channel 7, used Cadet Theater as an umbrella title for showing movies to viewers. On Saturday, August 22, 1953, the presentation under the umbrella title began at 2:00 p.m. By the way, I was only about two months old on August 22, 1953, and I did not see Cadet Theater on August 22, 1953. It was only recently that I saw the movie that was presented by Channel 7 on the date. The movie was Dick Barton at Bay. The movie opens with a man--who happens to be an agent related to the British War Service--being chased by two men who have pistols, and the agent is killed in a "phone box"; the man is killed while talking with Dick Barton (who is played by Don Stannard) on the telephone. A bit later, a group of bad guys sneak into a house and kidnap a scientist, the scientist's daughter, and the scientist's new invention, which can be used to knock aircraft out of hte sky at up to about twenty miles. The movie is a 1950 spy movie, which only runs about 65 minutes. I only recognized one performer in the movie, and that performer is the actor playing the killed agent. The actor is Patrick McNee (a skinny Patrick McNee). The actor was known as "Patrick Macnee" mostly from the 1950s to his death, and Patrick Macnee was an internationally known movie and television actor whose fame really got started by playing John Steed in The Avengers in the 1963, performing with such persons as Honor Blackman, Diana Rigg, and Linda Thorsen, and he was in The New Avengers later. To see something different, which has some weak acting performances, see Dick Barton at Bay, such as at 2:00 p.m. on a Saturday afternoon as a presentation of Looking at the Movies.
Now that some fun stuff (maybe) is done, I move on to more serious stuff, which is fun for me, since I get to beat up on highly rotten people in the media, especially on television, the main topic of Television History and Trivia documents.
Before I get into the meat of this edition of Television History and Trivia, I have an announcement. On October 9, 2018, WXYZ-TV, Channel 7.1, aired a special entitled 70 Years of 7. I will review that special--a terrible special--in the next edition of Televsion History andTrivia, since this edition is loaded with stuff.
Hey, it has become commonplace for television newcasts and radio newscasts to cover great amounts of useless news. For example, even on WJR-AM, Detroit, I regularly hear local newscasts with stories, such has drownings or fires, that take place in other states, and that is done even though there is so much locally that could be covered and even though the local newscasts are often only about two-minutes long (and stories are repeated from hour to hour)--the faraway stories have no value. By the way, in the fall, it has become commonplace for me to do my full survey of news people at Detroit-area television stations, and when I see the newscasts--which is an unpleasant and boring task--I end up seeing the same few stories over and over on a particular day, and I see so many social stories--not news stories--about fund raisers and such, and the newscasters often offer editorial asides designed to draw out emotions and feelings in viewers at the end of such stories [Note: Such garbage it is.]. On Tuesday, October 2, 2018, I learned about a story that every newscast on television and radio in the Detroit area should have carried as a top-of-the-newscast story, though the story was focused on California. It was big news! I bet your favorite newscast did not cover the story between Sunday, September 30, 2018, and Tuesday, October 2, 2018. Here is an aside--In a country based on "fascism," people can own companies, but, in truth, the goverment controls them (the companies and the owners) though laws. On Sunday, September 30, 2018, the governor of California--Jerry Brown, who I say is a hard-line pusher of communism and socialism and fascism--signed a new set of rules into law. The law mandiates that pubic-traded companies based in California must have a certain number of women on the boards of directors by certain dates. That is high-level fascism! That is rotten! That is enslavism! The people who push through such laws are evil! I report that hard-line fascism has come to California for everyone to see!
[Note: I bet people in the communistic cities of Royal Oak, Ferndale, and Ann Arbor in Michigan are now eyeing that law as something that they can work to get installed into law in Michigan, so get ready for the evil in Michigan to start talking about that law as good and to work to tell you to support it.]
[Note: I saw one story about the new law that I saw worked to suggest the law was good because it was a type of law like that in European countries, where socialism is the rule (Carpenter, Julia, and Jackie Wattles. "California has a new laws: no more all-male boards." money.cnn.com, 30 September 218, 6:32 p.m. ET.). The story was tied to the news entity known as CNN, which is a pusher of communism and socialism. Did you notice the story was written by women? Just because rotten countries, even in Europe, have such a law does not mean the places are good.]
[Note: Now that the law has been made in California, the idea could not only spread to other states in relation to "boards" but also to other things, such as city councils and state legislatures and non-profit organizations and clubs, and so I say that I see a lot of possible shit coming.]
I have to add an aside here. Diana Lewis--formerly of Channel 7 Action News--is now hawking for the Goodman Acker law firm. By doing such commercials for a law firm, Diana Lewis has shown how crappy her mind is.
In the past two previous editions of Television History and Trivia, I have pointed out the rotten minds of Mitch Albom (who has new book in publication, yet another book focused on death) and Brian Dickerson, both of whom write for the Detroit Free Press, the communistic/socialistic-type newspaper based in Detroit, Michigan, and the two guys do other work, and, for instance, Mitch Albom is a radio announcer on WJR-AM and does pieces for WDIV-TV, Channel 4.1. In the previous edition of Television History and Trivia, I said that this edition of Television History and Trivia would show up the evil mind of yet another writer at the Detroit Free Press--John Gallagher. Specifically, I was going to talk about an article entitled "Socialism was once a boon for Detroit" that was published in the Detroit Free Press for Septemer 3, 2018 [Gallagher, John. "Socialism was once a boon for Detroit." Detroit Free Press, 3 September 2018, pp. 1A and 13A.]. The article is a highly rotten piece, filled with lies and bullshit that only a evil man would write. Here now is my analysis of a man you must hate to protect yourself and your family! [Note: John Gallagher has appeared on television, and that means he can fit into any edition of T.H.A.T., and one appearance that John Gallagher had was on Flashpoint, a weekly Sunday political-discussion show aired by WDIV-HD, Channel 4.1, and hosted by Devin Scillian (the Cuba lover), and the date was July 16, 2017.]
Right from the start, the article is crap, and that crap is in the title. I report that "Socialism was once a boon for Detroit" presents a lie. "Socialism" is a form of government, and it is very close in form to communism and fascism. The only difference between "socialism" and "communism" is the degree of violence to citizens that can be set down by the leaders or rulers; socialism is a little less violent than communism is. "Communism" is hard-line one-party rule of a country, in which, really, leaders gain power in the one political party through use of violence and coercsion and money and payoffs, and it is, in essence, a tribal-type government or low-level type of government, which can be likened to the government of animals, such as hyenias and lions and tigers--force puts and keeps leaders in office, and logic and knowledge and real facts are expendable and useless or not considered. "Socialism" professes to be humane, but it is not, because the leaders are always on the verge to doing harm to the citizens to keep their jobs and their stature in society, and "socialists" take on the ways of "communists" when the citizens are getting away from being controlled and have to put be put down hard. At first, the "socialist" just does not have the "heart" do to great violence, but when push comes to shove, the "socialist" becomes a person who adopts the hard-line tactics of the communist. In truth, the structure of the government of Detroit was not communistic or socialist in the boom time, which was basicallly before the 1960s; for instance, the federal government was based on The United States Costitution, which is an anti-communist and anti-socialist document, designed to have the citizens rule ultimately. With socialism and communism, the rules and laws are at the discretion of the rulers or leaders, who are not limited in what nonsense or idiocy that they can inact as rules or laws and what can be imposed on the citizens, and with socialism and communism, the citizens have no rights--really--and everything is designed to keep the government people afloat and safe and protected, though rotten they can be. Unlike the United States of America, a socialistic or communistic society has no main ruling document that is designed to limit what the politicians can do to the citizens [Note: Socialism and communism can be tied to main documents--like "constitutions" in name--that can say what the governments may do for the people, but such documents do not guarantee or insure the governments will provide; for example, the government may give health-care insurance to all, but it does not mean that the government will provide real or good health care.]. "Socialism" created no "boom" in Detroit! John Gallagher's title is false!
[Note: I have seen thousands of editions of the Detroit Free Press from the past, and, in fact, I see a bunch almost every day. In the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, such a defective article as "Socialism was once a boon for Detroit" would never have appeared on the front page--the front page had news. "Socialism was once a boom for Detroit" is not a news piece--it is a propaganda piece. The article provides nothing useful, such as something that a person would wish to discover in fifty, sixty, seven, or eighty years. Today, I regularly look at old editions of the Detroit Press Press, and I can find useful news about such subjects as Detroit-based television shows, The Historic Owen Stanley Fawcett House of 1894, The Mackinaw WAGB-83, WAYN-AM, and WDET-FM. "Socialism was once a boom for Detroit" is a waste of newspaper space, and it is not history that will be worthwhile seeing in decades to come.]
Here is the first paragraph of John Gallagher's defective article--"With congressional candidate Rashida Tlaib and other emerging Democratic progressives adopting the long-maligned label of socialist, it's time to consider, for the fist time in a long time in American politics, what socialiam actually means.". Stop! John Gallagher put out crap right there. John Gallagher worked to make socialism and communism sound good by connecting them to "progressivism." A "progressive" is a "socialist" or a "communist" and usually a "communist" and sometimes a "socialist". In addition, he completely left out "communist" in the discussion, though a "progressive" can be a communist and often is, based on the political beliefs. John Gallagher worked to say that "socialism" is wrongly maligned, but history shows that John Gallagher is wrong. In addition, John Gallagher linked "Democratic" and "progressives," but a person who follows the ways of "progressivism" does not support "democracy," since progressivism is not democratic.
Hey, try this stuff as a aside. Mayor Coleman Young of Detroit (who became the mayor in the 1970s) was a black communist, part of a group that rose to power in the 1950s and 1960s, another of whom was U.S. Congressman John Conyers (whose wife ended up in prison for corrupt practices in government), and from the 1970s to the 2000s, Detroit went on a decline, and it went into bankruptcy--there was corruption in government and corruption in the schools and there was the plot to make "whites" the enemies [Note: The push was on to not teach "white" things, such as good English grammar, though, for example, there is no such thing as "white" things related to grammar and English, and now illiteracy in Detroit is high.]. Cuba became communistic in the 1950s, and the government took away rights and property from the people, and Cuba went to crap, and Cuba is still a shitty place. Venezuela ended up with Hugo Chavez as the leader in 1999 and his United Socialist Party of Venezuela, and now Venezuela is a dead country. North Korea has been dead for decades, and that is the way of communism. That is enough of that. I urge you to see Television History and Trivia #163. In it you will see information that shows some of the idiocy of socialism in a country that is transitioning--I say--to more idiotic socialism, and that country is Denmark. Look for the section of T.H.A.T. #163 that talks about a news report done by Cynthia McFadden. Read the idiocy of Denmark and the ways of socialism. To get to T.H.A.T. #163, use this T.HA.T. #163 link.
The second paragraph of "Socialism was once a boom to Detroit" is--"It's confusing. One of my colleagues tells me of a survey in which millennials mistook 'socialism'--a political and economic movement to oppose concentrated weatlth and power--for 'social media.' Two very different things. Socialism concerns itself with the plight of working people, not with Instagram or Facebook.". First, I state that "socialism" is not confusing. "Socialism" is concerned with making people equal in mind and wealth and all, through government rules and laws and dictates, which are at the whims of the rulers and leaders (who have to keep others from acquiring what they have, their positions and wealth and such). Second, if "socialism" or "progressivism" were concerned with "workers", why are the people poor in so many countries that have been operating with socialistic and communistic ways for decades?
Here is the third paragraph of John Gallagher's piece--"Nor, despite what many conservatives may assert, is socialism another name for fascism or communism--two types of dicatorships that punish dissent with breathless cruelty. Socialism may involve more national control of some industry, but more often it's a form of local democracy--local control of economic levers of society, in which working people free themselves from the impersonal forces of finance.". I contend that a "socialistic" country is not place where leaders can "punish dissent with breathless cruelty." In contend, a "socialistic" country is something that is transitioning to communism, and a "socialistic" country is a country in which coersion and bad laws and rules are made to punish the citizens and make citizens do the whims of the rulers or leaders. In truth, "fascism" is a system of government in which people can own businesses, but the government is the true controller of the businesses. By the way, in the 1930s, Adolph Hitler's way of government was "socialism," and his ways resulted in high violence on millions of persons. Notice John Gallagher's idea that control of the "economic levers of society" end up in local control. That is crap! Over time, in a socialistic society, the control always ends up in national control--there is no real local control. And trouble comes with national control--when the national rules related to economic activity are filled with idiocy, the entire nation gets affected adversely, and correcting the trouble is hard to do, because the national government lacks the knowledge to save the day (the rulers are usually not versed in real economics and they are versed in rules of government and law). There is no stopping the local control being taken away by national control, because national rulers always believe when a whole thing is controlled it results in better. That is idiocy! Remember--The people in government control of economics have no practice or real experience in real economics and in making things or products--[Forget about roads and bridges or deciding where the bridge or road should be.]. And John Gallagher pushed out the idea of being "free" from "impersonal forces of finance.". What the hell is John Gallagher talking about? If you look at China or Russia, there are very rich people (such as "oligarks"), and they are usually rich because they are tied very closely the political leaders--political leaders of the moment can determine who gets and who does not get rich, and that is all tied to payoffs of politicians. In socialistic and communistic countries, most of the citizens are not "free" from the "impersonal forces of finance", and they are shackled by the rules of the leaders and the rulers, which, in truth, go way beyond economic things.
Let me make an aside here to talk about "conservatism" and "conservatives" (not the pseudo "conservatives" or fake "conservatives"). One reason "conservatives" want politicians and governments limited in what politicians and governments can do to the citizens is it is commonplace for politicians to be stupid or rotten and for governments to be rotten. Many politicians are often put in their jobs, because they are elected by people who vote based on the looks of candidates and not good-thinking ability of candidates, or candidates get in office by having name recognition (being relatives of former politicians, for example), being charasimatic, being likeable (on the surface), being a good dresser, being associated with a particular political party that parents often voted for, being celebrities, being "activists" (do-nothing people), et cetera, which are useless reasons for being put in political office. Many people really do not vote for candidates based on the real thinking skills or backgrounds of candidates. I contend, for example, most of the people who are elected to the U.S. Congress and the U.S. presidency are not qualified to run the country, since they are specialists in useless knowledge. Many of the people in the U.S. Congress have college or university degrees related to useless subjects in relation to running a country--political science, history, English literature, law, and sociology. To really run a country, a person needs good general knowledge about a lot of subjects, such business (starting up and running businesses), mechanics, electronics and electricity, construction, accounting, bad political ideas (such as communism and Sharia (which is a political system maquerading a religion)), et cetera. In addition, I must add that many politicians, especially related to the Democratic Party, became politicians because they have no real skills and have no wish to do real work--do things and create things and be in jobs [Note: It seems many think they are "chosen ones," which is bullshit, and think doing work in menial.]. I now show some examples of high-ranking politicians to prove my point about people not being qualified (and I have chosen people who have been prominent in the news the last ten years or so). Barack Hussein Obama (a "Democrat")--a supporter of communism, socialism, and Sharia (which is Islamic Law, which features that piece of shit idea known as "Allah," which was created by man centuries ago)--has a background related to political science and international relations and English literature (gotten by attending Columbia University and Harvard University), and nothing shows up to indicate that Barack Obama has built anything and created anything or repaired anything physical. Mitch McConnell (a "Republlican"--in name only) has a "BA" in political science from the University of Louisville. John McCain (a "Republican"--in name only), who attended the United States Naval Academy, was well versed in literature and history. Chuck Schumer (a "Democrat") is versed in law, though he never practiced law really, after having attended Harvard University. Harry Reid attended Utah State University, and he is versed in political science and history (he did get some training in economics), and Harry Reid was at George Washington University Law School. Nancy Pelosi (a "Democrat") received a "BA" in political science at Trinity College. Elizabeth Warren (a "Democrat") focused on pathology and audiology at the University of Houston. Bernie Sanders focused on political science at the University of Chicago--he is a hard-line Marxist ("enslavist"). Joseph Biden (a "Democrat") received a "BA" in history and political science at the University of Delaware. Keith Ellison (a "Democrat") is a Muslim and a supporter of the highly evil Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, and Keith Ellision received a Juris Doctor from the University of Minnesota Law School [Note: He does have some education in economics.]. John Conyers (a "Democrat") focused on law at college. Dick Durbin (a "Democrat") focused on law, getting, for instance, a Juris Doctor distinction from Georgetown University Law Center. Hillary Clinton focused her "BA" studies in political science, such as at Wellesley College, and she was at the Yale law school. Susan Collins (a "Republican"--in mame only) focused on a "BA" related to government at St. Lawrence University. Maxine Waters (a "Democrat") focused on sociology at Los Angeles State College. The persons mentioned so far can be considered national figures I have more names now, and they have direct ties to Michigan. John Dingell (a "Democrat") was focused on law (in essence, he followed in his father's footsteps). Debbie Dingell (a "Democrat")--who is married to John Dingell--focused on foreign-service studies at Georgetown University, and she later got a "MA" related to liberal studies. Sander Levin (a "Democrat") focused on international relations at Columbia University and law at Harvard University. Carl Levin (a "Democrat") focused on law at Swarthmore College and political science at the Harvard Law School. Debbie Stanenow (a "Democrat") focused on, for instance, social work at Michigan State University. Jennnifer Granholm (a "Democrat") focused on law at Harvard University. Incidentally, a good and smart person is well aware Harvard University, George Washington University, and Columbia University are places that are breading grounds for communists and socialists. A person may receive high degrees, such as "MA" degrees, in social science and political science and law--fields of study that are loaded with confused thought, theories, guesses, et cetera--and yet be stupid people about the world and how to make things work right; they can be filled with histories not tied to developing commonsense thinking and logical thinking [Note: Persons often get high degrees in college and university by being good test-takers and being good memorizers--and not thinkers.]. Since politicians are often bad people--who can often hurt millions of persons through defective thinking--they have to be limited in what they can do in their political offices or jobs. And here is something that must be kept in mind. Many big-name politicians grew up in well-do-to families so they never really had to do anything at home while growing up, having servants and such--the people often have no history of doing work. And I have yet another big thing to keep in mind. When you put a bunch of low-level thinkers together--those whose backgrounds are based on memorizing rules in communistic books and such and whose backgrounds are not based on true thinking and good general knowledge and commonsense--you are very likely to get a collage of confusing and illogical laws and rules from the people, because those low-level thinkers can be easily persuaded by defective pressure groups, such as professors of economics who only spout theories and not practical ways tried economic rules, to take up foolishness and promote foolishness. I state--Government people must be limited in what they can do because their minds are often screwed up, and that means government has to be limited since it is commonplace for government to screw up the lives of millions!
[Note: It seems every likely to me "Democrats" with backgrounds in political science have read The Communist Manifesto (which I found to be a collage of idiocy and illogic) and Rules For Radicals, which are books designed teach how to tear down societies and designed to teach nothing good and teach nothing about creating something, and the Democrats love the works and follow the rules within them to the book, even pushing away logic to follow the rules.]
Here is paragraph four of the article by John Gallagher--"Many of the programs sought by today's socialists such as Tlaib sound more political in nature than economic. There's Medicare for all, for example--a call to cover all Americans with a government-paid health insurance. That's something that many of today's progressive Democrats want to enact but that conservatives condemn as socialized medicine.". What John Gallagher is advocating for is ultimately "single-payer medicine." In "single-payer medicine," the government has the complete control of medicine in the country, and when a government has complete control of the medicine, the people are not free. The people are not free to sidestep, for example, rotten care provided by the federal government or get rid bad doctors out of their presence. The government tells people who get to be doctors, how much doctors can make, and what doctors that people can see or not see. That is enslavism! Governmeet is known for screwing up regularly and well. In addition, when the government controls everything, it can decide who gets to live and who gets to die--a person who does not support that bad ways of the government and the bad politicians are expendable, which means the people are forced to do bad things or die.
I now provide the next three paragraphs of the article--But this Labor Day, let's look at what socialism means to economic, not political, terms. For if socialism means anything, it has to play out on the shop floor and in the boardroom, and at the kitchen table when everyone pays their taxes.You had to see the four paragraph together, before I could pass along some thoughts. Since at least the 1800s, there have been businesses in which the employees were the owners. For instance, there have been countless businesses run by families. In the case of families running businesses, someone has to make the final decision. There are big problems with what a business does or does not do when it is put in the hands of many. No two persons are the same. For example, one person could be gifted at writing but not gifted at making dresses, and one person may be good at mathematics and bad at chemistry. When a whole bunch of people have final imput into the running of a company, such a through a vote, you can end up with a collage of nonsense and with failure of the business, since most of the people will not have good ideas about making the business work or have experiences in background to make good decisions. John Gallagher is advocating that the country would be better if all business were owned by the employees, who ultimately made final decisions about things. Running a business through a mass of managers--all with different abilities, most of whom do not have the needed backgrounds to do right--does not work as a rule. For decades, many businesses have been owned by employees--employees can own stock and bonds in companies (and can receive benefits from having stock and bonds, called earnings). What does--"it has to play out.on the shop floor and in the boardroom and at the kitchen table when everyone pays their taxes."--mean? That is a collage of nonsense. It has no meaning that you can report to someone else. John Gallagher then tried to tie that collage of nonsense to the idea of "local democracy" and "George Orwell," who was an idiot it seems to me. John Gallagher put out--"'If liberty and democracy mean anything, they mean freedom for individual thought and expression.". But I say that socialism does not tolerate opposing thought, or socialists do not tolerate opposing thought, and that is why socialistic countries evolve in the long run into communistic countries in which violence has to be used on the people to get the people to adopt the ways of the communists. Socialism is not democratic or democracy! Already, the United States of America has a socialistic tax structure (such as that which might be approved greatly by Karl Marx, one of the fathers of communism). Rich people do pay more in taxes than poor people do, and, in fact, today, some poor people actually get money from the government (such as in "Earned Income Tax Credits"). All John Gallagher is proposing is the idea of taxing people who have money even more. [Note: Some time ago, I was told by a friend that the friend's mother saw a movie years ago in which the employees were handed over the control of a business, and the business went to crap, and I had to say that I never saw the movie. Recently, I did research to see what the movie may have been. The friend reported that the movie was seen by the friend's mother when the friend's mother was living in Anderson, Indiana. My research makes me believe the movie was Chance of a Lifetime, a 1950 British movie featuring Basil Radford, Niall MacGinnis, Patrick Throughton, and Bernard Miles (who co-wrote the movie withWalter Greenwood). So far, I have no evidence the movie was shown in the Detroit area in the 1950s, even though, in the 1950s, a number of films from England were shown on Detroit-area televsion. The movie can be found on YouTube, and you should take a look at it.]
This local democracy by its nature allows all sorts of voices. As George Orwell, the British writer and socialist who insisted upon socialism's willlingness to tolerate all political views, put it: 'If liberty and democracy mean anything, they mean freedom for individual thought and expression.'
That much established, we still need to consider: What is the core of a socialist economic agenda? Two items come to the fore: Employee ownership of enterprises and a different tax structure for the U.S.
Start with employee control. White far-right conservatives might gag at the notion of workers taking over their firms, employee ownership actually is a well-accepted, if admittedly modest, trend in U.S. business.
The article from John Gallagher then offered several paragraphs, one of which talks about how taxation in the middle of the 20th century had high-earners being taxed at 90 percent,
"and America enjoyed an economic dominance in the world never since equaled.". Unforumately, his statement is misleading. At that time, for example, executives received other compensation that did not get tied to the "90 percent" figure.
I now jump to paragraph fifteen of John Gallagher's nonsense--"That won't happen any more than workers are likely to take over Ford or General Motors. But the idea of a more progressive tax system in which the rich pay a much higher percentage than they do is hardly unusual. It's what the nation operated under and flourished with until very recently." Hey, John Gallagher, what is your purpose for taxing the rich more? Currently, the general operating debt of the country is 20,000-billion dollars. The federal government ran and runs the budget like crap! The debt related to unfunded liabilities is somewhere above 150,000-billion dollars. Taking all the money from the rich will not put a dent in the budget deficit. Anyway, when you take away from those who do do things--with money--fewer things get started and done. So, John Gallagher, you believe taking money from some people and giving it to others for free will save the day? That is idiocy! You seem to advocate people should be given money for free. In addition, in the roughly eight years before the tax cuts to which John Gallagher referred (recent tax cuts of the Donald Trump adminstration)--and I am talking about the Barack Hussein Obama years as US. president--the growth rate of the country was not "flourishing," and it was nearly stagnate. That is fact and history! Now--at the time this was written--the economic growth rate is running at about four percent. [See the crap that John Gallagher pushed out?]
Here are paragraphs sixteen and seventeen--It may help to remember that Detroit's most famous socialist was Walter Reuther, the champion and longtime president of the UAW. Surviving beatings and assassiation attempts in the 1930s and '40s, Reuther led the UAW's campaign to win landmark benefits in the post-World War II era, benefits that many Americans now consider middle-class entitlements.I state that benefits such as sick benefits, profit-sharing, company-paid pensions, and the like are not socialistic things. Those things are like wages really, and a person may or may not get them. In essence, the things are earned things, like wages, and the people who receive those things pay taxes on those things. The themes of paragraphs sixteen and seventeen pushed along by John Gallagher are not "socialism." "Socialism" is a government form.
And here is paragraph seventeen--"Those benefits included higher pay for factory work, company-paid pensions, company-paid hospitalization and sick benefits, annual profit-sharing checks, and more. All of those benefits bore the socialism label at one time before becoming mainstream.
By the way, "socialists" and "communists" like to be rich, and there is "socialistic capitalism" and "conservative capitalism." Incidentally, "conservatives" are anti-socialism and anti-communism, and "conservatives" are persons who wish government to be limited and be as small as possible, since, for one, government can put people in jail and hurt people. "Socialistic capitalism" involves people getting rich with the help of the government--the government picks winners and losers, or the government takes favors from people to allow the people to make money and keep money. "Conservative capitalism" involves having the government stay out of business matters as much as possible, since government does not really know what to make, how much to make, et cetera, and goverments are made up of people who are not versed or talented in creating things, such as never-before-seen things, and in making things and distributing things and eliminating things that do not find favor in the marketplace.
And here is paragraph number twenty-one--"But the idea to keep in mind is that socialism isn't quite the scary, never-tried concept that conservatives may portray. In many ways, it's as American as a paid vacation and a profit-sharing check." In the article, John Gallagher tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the reader. For example, "paid vacation" and "profit-sharing check" have nothing to do with socialism. John Gallagher worked make you think socialism is good and was not related to what it is really--a government form in which a few make all the decisions for the citizens or the "masses" (as the communist would say) and a government form in which people have no real rights. The article is one big lie and one big bullshit piece from a defective mind and shit-head mind.
John Gallagher is a man to hate!
[Note To me, John Gallagher's push take more from the rich comes about from jealousy--others have more than he has and he just cannot stand that.]
And that covers John Gallagher, and if you see John Gallagher on television,.understand he is a rotten man and a dangerous man to the health of good people.
On Thursday, September 27, 2018, a big spectacular took place on television (and on radio). There was a hearing related to the picking a new U.S. Supreme Court Justice. The event was a U.S. Senate hearing that was designed to hear information from a woman--Christine Blasey Ford--who was pushing out the idea that a man named Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted (something vaguely defined) her some 36 years ago and to hear information from Brett Kanavaugh. The hearing was a collage of idiocy that followed days and days of idiocy and was followed by a lot more idiocy.
Before the hearing would take place, many things happened that show up the rottenness of Democratics and many Republicans and the rottenness of the entire theme about the maybe sexual assault related to Brett Kavanaugh. The American public learned that maybe Christine Blasey Ford was assaulted (whatever that meant). People ran off the mouth saying that there was a "rape" and that Christine Blasey Ford was raped. Given no "rape" was ever implied by Christine Blasey Ford, lies were pushed out! A group of celebrity women, some of whom I have shown in the past to be supporters of communism and socialism, pushed out a video that worked to sell Christine Blasey Ford as good and a person to be believed because she is a woman, and some of those socialistic and communistic women were Amber Tamblyn, Julianne Moore, Eva Longoria, and Gabrielle Union, actresses who get to make big money through television and movies. Before the hearing would take place, Christine Blasey Ford pushed out the idea that Brett Kavanaugh did something to her, but Christine Blasey Ford could not remember where the non-rape incident took place, when the non-rape incident took place, et cetera. Television shows pushed out crap about the entire incident of some 36 years ago; for example, on Meygn Kelly Today (on NBC-TV on September 27, 2018), Dan Goldman, during a roundtable moment, said that there was no reason or "motive" for Christine Blasey Ford to be lying--her reputation could be ruined though the entire process [Note: I say that Christine Blasey Ford, who comes off as a communistic feminist, had everything to gain, such as prestige in the society and praise for knocking down a non-communistic man, and even if she could not stop Brett Kavanaugh's rise to the U.S. Supreme Court, she still would have gained clout in the communistic/socialistic community of the country.].
By the way, in real "rape" incidents, some women can purposely wipe out memories of the event for a while, but, ultimately, it is very likely the victims of rape remember clearly where a rape took place and by whom, and women who have had experiences with sexual assault are very likely to have "PTSD" (post-tramatic stress disorder), and when a person has PTSD, the person can have flashbacks of the event, can remember faces and people, can remember the place, et cetera.
During the hearing, no facts were presented to the American viewer by Christine Blasey Ford, and no illogic was shown up well to be illogic, and emotions ran wild [Note: I state that the emotional stuff was idiocy as a rule]. For example, Christine Blasey Ford, a professor whose higher educational background is mostly related to psychology [a useless topic for the most part], sounded phony, talking like a little girl who was yet emotionally hurting from some incident--which she never reported was a "rape" incident--though she was a woman of 51 years of age. Brett Kavanaugh was emotional [which was useless news to me], but it can be argued well that he was under current and in-the-now high stress for being, for example, smeared by the U.S. press and others, which had pushed out and were pushing out idiocy and lies. And Lindsay Graham (a semi-socialistic U.S. Senator, though he calls himself a "Republican") went in to an emotional rank.
Hold it! During the hearing, Christine Blasey Ford reported that she has "PTSD" incidents. However, Christine Blasey Ford could not provide the location of the so-called event or the day of the event. Something stinks about Christine Blasey Ford's presentation.
After the hearing, most people only talked about how the event was emotional and compelling, and almost no one talked about logic and talked about how things did not come together logically, and people had no real idea what may have taken place about 36 years ago, given no one had information about where the something may have taken place, who may have been at the event, when the event may have taken place place, et cetera. On September 28, 2018, Megyn Kelly pushed out in a roundtable moment that Christine Blasey Ford was "credible." I ask--"Credible" about what?". Nothing was shown related to who, what, where, when, how.... On September 28, 2018, I came across other people who thought Christine Blasey Ford was telling the truth and should be believed, such as the hard-line communistic gal named Nancy Kaffer of the Detroit Free Press, whom I have shown to be highly rotten in the past and who had her point of view presented in an article in the Detroit Free Press through a story entitled "Kavanaugh Hearing: Two points of view" [Dickerson, Brian, and Nancy Kaffer. "Kavanaugh hearing: Two points of view," Detroit Free Press, 28, 2018, p. 13A.], and, for example, some of Nancy Kaffer's thoughts in believing Christine Blasey Ford were--"Yes. And it is a belief, because after a hearing held Thursday, we have no more facts about Blasey's claim that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than 30 years ago, in no small part because Blasey's request for an FBI investigation was denied. But I do believe her. She seemed exactly what she claimed: a woman who was assaulted, who is certain of her assailant's identify, who was reluctant to come forward but did so because she believed it was her duty...." and "...I believe Blasey. But even if her allegations were not disqualifying, his conduct was. The shouting, the conspiracy theories, the aggessive and rude comments to Democratic senators, he apparaent lack of self-examination or introspection...it is impossible to imagine other justices with whom I have ideological disagreement--a John Roberts or a Neil Gorsuch--behaving in this manner. This was more Alex Jones than Oliver Wendell Holmes. We expect Supreme Court justices to recognize that service is more important than self. The guy who ranted and raved today? Nah. He doesn't belong in their ranks.". [Nancy Kaffer passed along shit-head ideas (as did Brian Dickerson in the article), based on nothing but a "belief" in emotions from Christine Blasey Ford.] On September 28, 2018, I happened to tune into--at the spur of the moment--The View (of ABC-TV) right when the program was in the middle of a discussion of the Christine Blasey Ford mess, and Joy Behar (a supporter of communinstic feminism) was speaking about the issue of race--She pushed forth the nonsense that the country is 61-percent "white" and the "white" population is expected to go down and down, and "whites" are working to hold on to power and want, in essence, to keep "whites" on the U.S. Supreme Court no matter what, even if it means putting--what she believed--was a rotten man on the U.S. Supreme Court. That idea from Joy Behar was highly rotten, and the "white" stuff had no bearing on the Christine Blasey Ford mess, yet Joy Behar pushed the idea into the mess. The episode of The View had the hostesses mostly passing along emotions and feelings and no facts or logic, but that is typical for the women who appear on The View, especially in the case of Whoopi Goldberg, whom I have learned to understand is a black racist. Sunny Hustin appeared during the roundtable moment on The View on September 28, 2018, and she passed along fluff and nonsense, and after I had heard her nonsense, I went to the Internet to see and learn a bit about her, and I came across a story with video entitled "Sunny Hostin Says She'd Prosecute Brett Kavanaugh Based on Christine Blasey Ford's Testimony" [Cullins, Ashley. "Sunny Hostin Says She'd Prosecute Brett Kavanaugh Based on Christine Blasey Ford's Testimony," hollywoodreporter.com, 27 September 2018, 9:39 a.m. PDT.], and although Christine Blasey Ford passed along no facts related to a so-called possible sexual assault of about 36 years ago during her testimoney (she passed along emotions) on September 27, 2018, I saw in the video of the news story that Sunny Hostin passed along to interviewer George Stephanopoulos (on ABC-TV) that she found Christine Blasey Ford's testimony to be "extremely credible," though I report that nothing credible was passed along during the testimony, and Sunny Hostin reported that she would take Brett Kavanaugh to court and prosecute him for what he seemed to have done. On Sunday, September 30, 2018, the black racist female known as Rochelle Riley got to have another of her rotten articles published in the Detroit Free Press (Riley, Rochelle. "Kavanaugh hearing shows worst of America." Detroit Free Press, 30 September 2018, pp. 4A and 6A.], and it was loaded with bullshit (and bad sentences and non-sentences), such as--"...And watching the Senate Judiciary hearings to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as a U.S. Supreme Court justice made clear why Donald Trump was elected, why Sen. Chuck Grassley is so danged patronizing. We are no longer than land of the free and the home of the brave. This land, this government, belongs to hateful people whose wild-eyed rants were once not allowed, whose disdain for the poor and the sick and those who immigrated after their families did, so are not welcome. They pretened to listen to Christine Blasey Ford's allegation that Kavanaugh tried to rape her. But it was as if the GOP was a fraternity waiting to induct one of its beer-drinking, fun-loving pledges and these damn women were getting in the way...." and "...None, I repeat, none featured a group of men so anti-women, anti-democratic and unfeeling as the group led by Sen. Chuck I'm-going-to-talk-all-the-time-Grassley and Graham, who couldn't really have been a friend to Sen. John McCain, although Cain and Abel were brothers. What we watched last week--and what I had to turn away from and watch later because you could only take so much at once--was a display that showed why Donald Trump got elected president. What we watched last werk--Christine Ford telling her story almost apologetically to a bunch of men who literally were so dismissive that it almost required the throwing of shoes--was proof that America is gone. What we watched was a game of thrones with no winners because it showed exactly why so many of us hate the current system of government...." Yes, really, Rochelle Riley was promoting hatred for The U.S. Constitution and democracy and praise for the ways of hard-line communism with the women as the leaders. Rochelle Riley's article had nothing to do with facts and evidence and logic--it was all about emotions in the mind of a communist, her mind. Rochelle Riley's article also had--"...While Donald Trump is quiety pushing Kavanaugh to fight for a seat he doesn't deserve, he better understand that even if confired, he could become the first associate justice with an astrisk. He could become the first charged with a felony. He could become the first associate justice to go to jail. I wonder what his daughters, who he said wanted to pray for 'the woman' would feel about that....". The material from Rochelle Riley was all bullshit, which had no real anchoring to the facts and logic of the Christine Blasey Ford mess, but that is not surprising, since I have shown in the past that Rochelle Riley has a rotten mind, a mind that supports Hillary Cinton as good, though a good person is well aware Hillary Clinton violated the U.S. Espionage Act but was not put on trial because of corruption in the upper-levels of the FBI (headed by James Comey).
Emotions based on nothing concrete was the thing with the whole "Christine Blasey Ford" mess, and women and some men, especially people tied to the Democratic Party (a communistic political party), were thinking and talking like little stupid girls in relation to the mess, and it was on display on television!
By the way, the FBI went on to investigate, even though Christine Blasey Ford cannot tell the FBI where the event took place and Christine Blasey Ford cannot tell the FBI when the event took place. How is anything going to come about out of a 36-year-old-maybe event? Anyway, in the past, the FBI has done several investigations into Brett Kavanaugh in relation to his court appointments. A person has to keep in mind the whole mess sort of got started with U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstrein (a Democrat) receiving a letter about the so-called incident of sexual abuse from Christine Blasey Ford in July 2018, which led to Dianne Feinstein's doing nothing to pass the letter--which was vague, having no information about place or date--on to the FBI.
[Note: On Monday, October 1, 2018, Mark R. Levin used some time on his nationally syndcated radio show--The Mark Levin Show--to show up the defectiveness of Christine Blasey Ford's telling of the so-called incident over the years, and the radio program is available for free at marklevinshow.com.]
[Note: The more women have gotten on to television--since most who get on are socialists or communists or black racists--the worse television has become, filled with idiotic and rotten thinking and ideas and with hatred for men.]
Here is an aside of sorts, and I call it an aside of sorts since the person who is the focus of this section probably has not been on television, and the topic is Richard L. Hall and his comments in a newspaper editorial in the Detroit Free Press called "Brett Kavanaugh does not deserve benefit of the doubt" [Hall, Richard L. "Brett Kavanaugh does ot deserve benefit of the doubt." Detroit Free Press, 5 October 2018, p. 11A.]. Richard L. Hall is a "professor of political science and public policy at the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy" (as was noted at the end of the article), and this section shows up one reason that I say people versed in "political science" are filled with nonsense or their minds are filled with illogic and crap. Richard L. Hall pushed out the idea in his article that Brett Kavanaugh should not be given benefit of the doubt related to his story about the Christine Blasey Ford allegations--Christine Blasey Ford is the person to believe. Some of the words Richard L. Hall pushed out in the article are--"....In fact, Christine Blasey Ford's testimony does not need more corroboration. If the investigation [FBI investigation] produces nothing but more uncertainty, that should be the end of it. Ties do not go to Supreme Court nominees. They do not get benefit of the doubt. One of the first things one learns in elementary statistics is that there are two types of errors one can make in evaluating evidence. The first is accepting a claim as true when it is false (a false positive). The second is accepting a claim is false when it is true (a false negative). There is a strict tradeoff between these two. Decrease the risk of one type of error, and you increase the risk of the other....". I state that, in those set of quoted words, Richard L. Hall passed along nonsense and bullshit and something that has nothing to do with the Christine Blasey Ford event. First, there were no facts or potential facts presented by Christine Blasey Ford--it was all emotion and belief. Second, the event cannot be analyzed with statistics--there is no data (such as a series of numbers) to analyze. Richard L. Hall later pushed out--"...Why err so heavily on the side of the defendant? First, because the defendant has a presumptive right to his freedom. It is the government's burden of proof to take it away. Second, the harm to an innocent man of going to jail is terrible for him and his family, while the harm to society of one guilty man acquitted is small. It is 'better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.'...." In the last set of words quoted, Richard L. Hall pushed out the idea that Christine Blasey Ford is the "defendant" who should be trusted more than Brett Kavanaugh. I report--It was Brett Kavanaugh who was, in essence, on trial and was the "defendant." In court cases, "prosecutors" take people to court with charges of some type, and, in relation to the Christine Blasey Ford event, Christine Blasey Ford had the role of the "prosecutor," issuing charges Do you see Richard L. Hall's illogic and idiocy? Later, Richard L. Hall passed along this nonsense--"...The harm of rejecting a fully qualified nominee (a false negative) pales by comparison. The harm to him is the loss of major job opportunity, not going to jail. Second, the nominee has no presumptive right to a seat on the Court. Just the opposite. The burden of proof is on him and his advocates to establish he is qualify....". Through the last set of quoted words by me, Richard L. Hall's showed that he supports the communistic theme that it is the accused who must prove innocence. That is shit! By the way, do you want it so that, from now on, any potential person for the U.S. Supreme Court job can be attacked with any allegation of something and then must prove the allegation is defective? Richard L. Hall continued with this defective set of words---"...Reasonable doubt should acquit a criminal defendant, but it should eliminate a Supreme Court nominee. It is better that 10 qualified judges get rejected than let one criminal sit on the Supreme Court. Not all doubt is reasonable, of course. Scurrilous charges will not do. The evidence must be credible. But that is not at issue. Key supporters of Kavanaugh have conceded the point. Several Republican senators, including Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and Majority Whip John Cornyn.[,] said after last week's hearing that Blasey Ford's testimony was 'credible.' President Trump at first said the testimony was credible and 'compelling.' Unless the FBI allegation produces new evidence that Kavanaugh is lying or deluded, Trump and the Republicans should move on to the next nominee. Senators do not need to be convinced that the allegations of assault and perjury are true. They only need to be sure they are false. That may seem unfair to Kavanaugh--and it would be, if this were a criminal trial. But that process is not about fairness to him. It s about the risk to an institution that affects all of us.". The reasoning by Richard L. Hall is defective, and it is the thought of an evil person. I state that Richard L. Hall is a man to be hated by good people for he promotes and teaches idiocy and rottenness in society! [Note: I bet Richard L. Hall's classes or courses are filled wth garbage logic, which would make sense since he is tied to the University of Michigan, a socialistic/communistic-based university.]
On Saturday, October 6, 2018, Brett Kavanaugh was made a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, but the crap just kept on coming from rotten people, such as Kristen Jordan Shamus, such as through an article of hers in the Detroit Free Press [Shamus, Kristen Jordan. "#MeToo doesn't stop Kavanaugh. Detroit Free Press, 7 October 2018, p. 15A.]. Some of the crap from Kristen Jordan Shamus in the article is--"The judge is now a justice, though it hardly feels as if justice was served. The U.S. Senate voted 50-48 Saturday to confirm Brett Kavanaugh--the 53-year-old Circuit Court of Appeals judge accused of sexual misconduct by several women--to a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court....". I report--There were allegations from three women, and none of women had facts or proof, and most of the stories were shot full of holes with facts and such. I state here that Kristen Jordan Shamus is an evil--evil--woman! Look at this material in the article--"...The narratives are as old as dust, and just as tired. Injustice was rewarded with power. The judge is now a justice, though it hardly feels as if justice was served. Yet again, women--Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick--were not believed. Yet again, a man with the privileges of being white, male, rich and highly educated, was given the benefit of the doubt. Worse, he was granted power to make decisions for millions of Americans, including sexual assault survivors. And he was portrayed in the end as the victim...." and "...America saw what happened when men who are accused of harassing and sexually assaulting women are appointed to the Supreme Court. In 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas faced a similar accusation from Anita Hill. Despite her testimony and evidence, Thomas was seated on the Court....". I state that the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas event had been all bullshit, as history shows, and the same ploy was used on Brett Kavanaugh! By the way, did you see the hate for white men in Kristen Jordan Shamus--it is driving her bullshit mind and bullshit thinking.
Announcement: I have several new documents on the Internet--at the website for The Hologlobe Press. One document is entitled "Indigenous Peoples Day"--It is Not Deserved and Should Not Exist. It can be reached by using this Indigenous link. Another document is entitled Black-Racist U.S. Representative Frederica Wilson (a Democrat related to Florida) Shits on a Killed U.S. Soldier--Army Sergeant La David Johnson (a Black Man), which can be reached through this Frederica Wilson. In relation to Frederica Wilson, you should see the video on YouTube entitled "John Kelly's EMOTIONAL White House Press Briefing 10/22/2017", which was posted on October 19, 2017, and it runs 21 minutes. Yet another document is entitled The United States of America is Not "Healthy" Anymore and Never Will Be Again--Stupid Americans by the Millions and Rotten Politicians Like Having the Federal Government in Charge of Health Care, When It Should Never Be, which can be reached through this Not Healthy link. Also I put a document that is under construction (at the time this document was published on the Internet) at the website for The Hologlobe Press so that I could show the documents listed in the bibliography (and it has a tie-in with this document), and that document is informally called A Collage of Corrupt, which can be reached through this Collage link.
In the previous edition of T.H.A.T., I reported that I would have more about Tim Kiska's book entitled From Soupy to Nuts!, showing up more errors in the book. On page 32 and page 33, Tim Kiska talked about Detroit Tubeworks. Stop! Right there, Tim Kiska has a error. The program to which he referred was not called Detroit Tubeworks. The program was called Detroit Tube Works. The first paragraph of the section was--"Local television's first nod to the conterculture of the late 1960s, Detroit Tubeworks was to the young audiences of the day what Backstage Pass was to audiences of the 1990s: a place for progressive music artists to be heard. That is wrong. Detroit Tube Works started out as a one-shot special that was shown on WTVS-TV, Channel 56, the PBS-associated station, on Thursday, March 5, 1970, and, for example, it showed audiences performances by Joe Cocker and John Lee Hooker. The series called Detroit Tube Works showed up on Channal 62, WXON-TV, on Sunday, November 22, 1970. In essence, it was roughly a once-a-month series, and the last episode was shown on June 20, 1971. Some of the performers or musical groups who were seen on the series were Savage Grace, MC5, Mitch Ryder, Teegarden & Van Winkle, Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band, Grand Funk Railroad, the Chambers Brothers, Johnny Winter, Melanie, Fleetwood Mac, and Humble Pie. The series was hosted by disc jockeys working at WABX-FM, Detroit. For the start of the second paragraph of the section in the book about the television series, Tim Kiska had--"Tubeworks was an outgrowth of Live From Planet Earth on Channel 56.". I state--the show was not Live From Planet Earth. The series was called Live From Earth. That series started out on WTVS-TV, Channel 56, on Tuesday, February 11, 1969, and it ran weekly. The last new episode was shown on June 26, 1969. The episodes were simulcast--audio only--on WABX-FM.
Announcement for the novice again (reworked in May 2017): To get useful television-delivered news or Internet-delivered news, WorldNetDaily.com, "The Drudge Report," and CNS News (which is on the Internet and which was launched on June 16, 1998), since the entities do not blindly support Barack Obama-type people (communists and Shariaists), as do CNN, MSNBC, NBC-TV, CBS-TV, and ABC-TV (Note: To learn about bad journalism, you might tune in to CNN, MSNBC, NBC-TV, CBS-TV, and ABC-TV from time to time to see how they differ from the better places mentioned). I note that Fox News Channel is evolving into a rotten channel, becoming like those that I have put down in this paragraph. If you are unclear of my intentions, I say in different words that you should boycott CNN, MSNBC, NBC-TV, CBS-TV, and ABC-TV and even now much of what is on the Fox News Channel and hope they lose more ratings and advertising revenues, since they are expendable, and it is time for you to find the guts to be mean and heartless and cancel them--since they are hurting you. [Note: Everyone in the Democratic Party in the country is rotten, and the Republican Party establishment has shown itself to be socialistic and communistic within the last few years, and only a few of the rotten people are U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie.]
Parade is the name of a Sunday-supplement magazine that people around the country see, such as through subscription to a Sunday-edition newspaper. On September 5, 2018, the edition of the magazine had something called "Parade Picks" on page 5, and for the page, Melanie McFarland noted--"So many good shows--and so little time! Nobody can watch everything, but make sure you don't miss these new shows." Here I show you what shows she was recommending. First up was The Connors, which is a spin-off of Roseanne and which is a highly liberal show, pushing at least socialism and gays things and cross-dressing things as good. Murphy Brown was number two, and this Murphy Brown is a reboot of old Murphy Brown, and this show is a political piece, which is going to cover such socialistic themes as climate change and the faux Russia-election-tampering scandal. Number three was Camping, which was created by Lena Dunham, the pusher of hard-line communism and feminism. Jim Carrey was highlighted in the new series entitle Kidding, which is about a freak; Jim Carrey is a big supporter of communistis and such. Next, in the list was I Feel Bad, and it is supposed to be a comedy, though the title is depressing, and the show comes from socialistic Amy Poehler and is scheduled for NBC-TV (the communistic television network). Number six was The Kominsky Method, which features as the main performers Michael Douglas and Alan Arkin (who are old guys who support socialism and communism). A reboot was next--Charmed as number seven is a remake of the old Charmed. Number eight was Mayans M.C., commercials for which I have seen makes me define the show as a highly depressing and dark piece. Homecoming, which will air through Amazon, was number nine, and the show features Julia Roberts and Sissy Spacek as the main performers, and Julia Roberts and Sissy Spacek are supporters of at least socialists. And number ten was The Cool Kids, one of whom is gay, and to me, it looks as if it will be a put-down piece on older America. Nothing recommended by Melanie McFarland seemed to be nice and be fun for the sake of fun. I shall skip all the series.
Earlier in this edition of T.H.A.T., I showed the backgrounds of a number of polticians, showing how limited their backgrounds of knowledge are and doing things are, and now I have information about some of the big-name journalists that you can see on your television set. Chuck Todd focused on political science and music at George Washington University. Margaret Brennan got a BA in foreign affairs and Middle East studies at the University of Virginia. Jake Tapper got an A.B. in history from Darthmouth College. George Stephanopoulos got a Masters of Arts in Theology at the University of Oxford. Brian Williams was at the Catholic University of America and George Washington University, and he got no degree. Mika Brzezinski got a BA in English at Williams College. Anderson Cooper obtained a BA in political science at Yale University. Joe Scarborough ended up with Juris Doctor at the University of Florida College of Law. Andrea Mitchell got a BA in English literature from the University of Pennsylvania. Tom Brokaw got a BA in political science from the University of South Dakota. Rachel Maddow got a Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Oxford. Wolf Blitzer focused on international relations and got an MA at John Hopkins University of Advanced International Studies. Chris Cuomo got the Juris Doctor distinction from Fordham University. Do you see how undiverse these people are and how much alike in backgrounds they are to the politicans covered in this document? It is a collage of mush-heads--people who actually have done nothing and have not learned anything substantial! [Note: Since I am well versed in television history, I am familiar with the what the so-called broadcasters noted in this paragarph stand for, and every one has shown support communism and socialism and communists and socialists. I bet you did not noticed something. Where are the journalism degrees, such as Masters of Arts degrees or even Bachelor of Arts degrees? If you can talk--even if it is flap doodle--you can be on television presenting stuff.]
Here is a bit. The first new prime-time television series for the broadcast-television universe showed up on Fox TV on Sunday, September 9, 2018, and that series is Rel. The first episode featured Lil Rel Howery, Jessica "Jess Hilarious" Moore, Jordan L. Jones, and Sinbad as the main regulars. Even though the episode was directed by Gerry Cohen, who has been around as a director for years, the episode was only about "C" grade, but that is mostly because of the writing and format. One way in which you can tell a show is sort of flat is when the studio audience watching the show while it is being produced provide over-the-top laughter, and that happened with the first episode of Rel.
Here is another bit. The second new prime-time series for the broadcast-television universe showed up on NBC-TV on Wednesday, September 19, 2018, and, in fact, two episodes of the new series were shown. I only watched the first episode. The main performer is Sarayu Blue--who happens to be of Indian (of Asia) descent and often has ugly facial expressions--and she plays a married gal (with a caucasian husband), and she has her children and parents living with her, and she is the head artist in video-game company, and she has a team of a bunch of young guys, who, in essence, have all the other ethnics for television covered, such as a British guy, a white guy, heavy-set black guy.... With Sarayu Blue continually doing narration during the episode, the episode came off as a thirty-minute self-analysis piece. The program was stupid girl stuff or stupid socialistic girl stuff! There was not one funny moment in the program. Near the end of the program, Saraya Blue's character flings a shoe off her foot and hits a boy. I guess that was supposed to be the big funny bit of the program. The program is a political piece, and I guess the operators of NBC-TV (a communistic television network) are happy since they got another ethnic group on television in a sitcom. Television has Asians, blacks, gays, and now Indians. Hey, when is network broadcast television going to have a sitcom with an American Indian familly so that people can look down on American Indians or, really, so that the communists and socialists in Hollywood can put down the American Indian? Oh, the title of the program is I Feel Bad. The title fits the program. I felt bad after seeing the program. The program was another one in which an ethnic group is made to look bad in this day and age of television that is not nice or fun for the sake of fun.
Already the prime-time broadcast television season is mostly presenting rottenness to the American public. The worst show so far is Murphy Brown (on CBS-TV), which is a communistic-type show; it is a retread of a socialistic show called Murphy Brown. The first episode of the series aired on September 27, 2018, and, in essence, it opened with Murphy Brown screaming after learning Donald J. Trump had been elected to the office of the U.S. presidency. Here is an aside. Hillary Clinton is a communist and a supporter of Sharia (Islamic law, a rotten political system masquerading as a religion), and she is a liar, and she violated while in federal-government office the U.S. Espionage Act, and Hillary Clinton worked to get the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Egypt [Note: I could mention more of the shit that Hillary Clinton has been tied to.]. Near the end of the episode of the new Murphy Brown--now clearly a pusher of communism as good--Hillary Clinton appeared. It seems to me Murphy Brown was brought back to television to push communistic political issues, and because it does, it shows the rotten nature of all involved, beginning with Candice Bergen. On September 27, 2018, another rotten show was given to television viewers, and this show--How to Get Away with Murder--was pushed out by ABC-TV. During the first episode--early on--the main character worked to choose students to be in her class, and she set some off to the "right" and some off to the "left," and all those sent off to the left pushed their likes for communistic and socialistic ideas. In the end, the lead character got rid of those on the right--they were sent away. By the way, one of the things liked by a person of the group of the "left" was "universal income," in which the government will guarantee everyone a bacic income--for free--though in reality the money to be given out free comes from those who are taxed for making money. How to Get Away with Murder--It is another political show pushing communism and socialism as good.
I have to put this note about football and television here. During two broadcasts of Notre Dame footbal games this fall, I caught some idiot thought presented in a commercial aimed at students or new students. The line of crap is--"...It [education] teaches us where we belong....". That is bullshit!
Here is an aside (It is something that television newscasters will not touch, being crappy people or gutless people). Make with it what you will. Within the past month, a friend of mine showed me a sheet of paper that was from "Secure Freedom" (P.O. Box 1649, Merrifield, Virginia 22116-1649). The heading text was--"As an example of how SHARIA is stealthily insinuated into our country, consider this list of some of the POPULAR GROCERY and RESTAURANT CHAINS now selling Sharia-compliant 'Halal' meat -- often not labeled as such -- and that MILLIONS OF US are buying and eating, unaware. The animal's troat is slit by a Muslim cleric who exclaims 'ALLAH AKBAR!"...as a sacrifice to Allah." Then, the piece of paper has this list--Safeway, Costco, Whole Foods Market, Outback Steakhouse, Popeye's, Walmart, KFC, Trader Joe's, Randall's/Tom Thumb, Shop Rite, H-E-B, Sprouts Farmers Market, Publix, Stop and Shop, Shaw's, Vons, Shopper's Food and Pharmacy, and Silver Diner." I report that Sharia (Islamic Law) is a political system--a hard-line oppressive political system-trying to masquerade as a nice and good religion. Sharia is shit created by men centuries ago, and "Allah" is shit! Sharia is "enslavism," like communism and socialism.
Hey, did your favorite television newscaster cover this? Iran is a country based on Sharia. The country is a terrorist country. Terrorism is the way of Shariaists. John Kerry was once the U.S. Secretary of State, which was for a portion of the Barack Hussein Obama years as the U.S. president, and John Kerry is a rotten man, such as because of his lying to federal-government people years ago about U.S. soldiers' actions in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. By the way, Donald Trump Jr. has been accused by some people of doing something rotten by meeting with, for one, a Russian gal a little before the election of Donald Trump as the U.S. president (in 2016), but what Donald Trump Jr. did was not illegal or wrong, and, in essence, the meeting never really became much. On September 12, 2018, John Kerry reported to a national known radio man known as Hugh Hewitt that he [John Kerry] met several times with Javad Zarif--a political figure in Iran--recently, such as in Norway, to see if he [John Kerry] could salvage the Iranian nuclear deal. That is crap done by John Kerry. John Kerry is not a part of the U.S. federal government anymore. A good and smart person understands that John Kerry's meeting with Javad Zarif is undermining the Donald Trump administration, and a good and smart person should wonder why John Kerry is not being investigated for his rotten actions. ["Kerry admits to meeting with Iranian officials over nuclear deal." nypost.com, 12 September 2018, 5:23 p.m.]
In the previous edition of Television History and Trivia, I talked about the "Miss America" event. On Sunday, September 9, 2018, the 2018 event was broadcast on television, and the winner was a gal from New York. Miss Michigan took part in the event, and she did not win. I report, here, that Miss Michigan was and is Emily Sioma. I did not watch the broadcast. When the broadcast was past, I learned about some things that Emily Sioma said on the broadcast. For one, Emily Sioma said--"...I'm from the state with 84 percent of the U.S.'s fresh water, but none for its residents to drink....". The statement is idiocy. The statement seems to focus on the "Flint Water Crisis" of a few years ago, which was the inspiration for the television movie entitled Flint. Emily Sioma is an idiot woman. I report--The Flint Water Crisis was caused by the people of Flint shitting in their own nest and hiring rotten and stupid people to be the political leaders for decades, such as known crooks. When I discovered a lot of media outlets and people were entralled with Emily Sioma's comment, I looked up the educational background for Emily Sioma. Emily Sioma went to the University of Michigan, which is based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which is a socialistic/communistic stronghold in Michigan, and Emily Sioma's main focus at the university was "women's studies." "Women's studies--this is bullshit stuff pushed along by communists and socialists, especially women. Look up "women's studies" on the Internet to find out what it is about. It is pseudo-intellectual crap! I am glad Emily Sioma got wiped out as a possible Miss America. Emily Sioma is at least a socialist--a rotten person, whose head and mind is filled with nonsense. You would never want to be with her, guys--it would be a life of crap. And that is what is coming out of universities and working to be "Miss America" (who should be non-socialistic and non-communistic and should know Sharia is shit). [Note: I would not have picked Emily Sioma to be Miss Michigan, based on what appears to be in her head. And some gals who are pushing for "Miss America" changes want women--contestants--to be judged on their minds. The judges for the 2018 Miss Michigan event screwed up!]
Okay, I have to dispel some false Detroit-television history. On September 29, 1975, Channel 62, WGPR-TV, was fired up in Detroit, and it was a black-owned television station, and on the debut day, the station aired two newscasts. One newscast was at noon, and it featured Amyre Porter and Pal D'Que (each of whom was a black woman). At 7:30 p.m., the station aired the first edition of Big City News, which had Jerry Blocker (the news director for the station) and Doug Morison as the main anchors. On that day, the station had a weathercaster, and that person was Sharon Crews. Recently, I went on a "tracking" mission (a research mission) to see what was happening or had happened to Sharon Crews. I discovered Sharon Crews was in California, and I saw, over the years, she has pushed the idea (such as through a blog) that she was the first black female weathercast on prime-time television in the country. I disagree with that. In 1975, prime-time in Detroit was from 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., and from 7:00 p.m . to 8:00 p.m., viewers had local pre-prime-time. I do not consider Sharon Crews to be the first black weathercaster for prime-time (even if only Detroit is considered). I do not know who was the first. If Sharon Crews gets credit for it, I have to knock it down. I go back to Monday, August 19, 1963. On that date, Trudy Haynes became the regular weathercaster for the weekday evening newscast on WXYZ-TV, Channel 7, Detroit. Trudy Haynes was a black gal--the first black gal to do weathercasting on Detroit television. Her newscast started out at 11:20 p.m. and ran for a few minutes. Trudy Haynes gave up the weathercasting job in April 1964 and took up being a regular news reporter for WXYZ-TV. In essence, in 1963, the time from 11:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. was post prime-time. If you replace "first prime-time" with "first evening," then Trudy Haynes is the person who should be credited as the first.
On Sunday, September 30, 2018, I happened to tune into a Detroit-area television show called Talk Beat Jones. That show airs weekly at 9:00 a.m. and for one hour on what is informally called WHPS-TV, Channel 33.1. The host is Billy Jones, a black guy. I tuned into the program when it was already in progress, and when I tuned in, Billy Jones said that we [blacks] are never going to have change until whites are out of office. The time was about 9:10 a.m. when that thought was presented. At about 9:23 a.m., Billy Jones pushed out the idea that he is not a radical person. And then at about 9:26 a.m., Billy Jones pushed out the idea that he is working to "bring us together." I report that, really, Billy Jones pushed out crap, and, in fact, he showed himself to be a black racist--He is against whites and wants to get rid of whites. By the way, he has no problem promoting communist blacks, such as Barack Hussein Obama, as good! [Note: Communists in the form of "whites" or "blacks" or whatever are highly rotten and evil.] When you see Billy Jones on Talk Back Jones, you are seeing a rotten man, who happens to be a black racist.
I have to make a few comments about Dick Barton at Bay. The actor who played the head bad guy was adequate in his acting, and the guy who played Snowey (Dick Barton's sidekick) was adequate, but most of the performers were lame. The director did a poor job, especially with the fight sequences, which looked hokey and cheap. The production reminded me of a 1930s very-low-budget "serial" for movie theaters of the United States of America, though Dick Barton at Bay was not presented in parts. I made Dick Barton at Bay a subject for Looking at the Movies, since the movie had Patrick McNee (Patrick Macnee) is an early role for him, which was about 15 years before people in the United State of America would become familiar with him in The Avengers.
Remember: The Prisoner with Patrick McGoohan was a television show that was produced across the pond and shown on CBS-TV in the late 1960s, and I urge you to find The Prisoner on DVD, maybe from a library, and watch it, and you should show it--all the episodes--to teenagers, or buy it as a present for teenagers.
Incidentally, since I published the previous edition of Television History and Trivia, a document of mine has become a part of the Burton Historical Collection of the Main Branch of the Detroit Public Library, Detroit, Michigan. The document is entitled The Historical Owen Stanley Fawcett House of 1894 in Detroit (located at 152 Putnam/672 Putnam). It tells the story of the most important house--I say--in the entertainment history of Detroit. The call number for the document is--"E&M 74D4 728F".
P.S.: You are urged to see my document entitled One of "The Rules of Man"--A Rule About Health Care that No Politician May Supersede with Law, which can be reached through this Rule1 link. I have deduced that all the Democrats and most Republicans support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and have no intention of killing it, though it should be killed for violating, for one, "The Rules of Man." For example, Republicans Jeb Bush and Chris Christie support the rotten law, and that is one reason that I define them as stupid men and not men who are good enough--in this day and age--to be the U.S. President. I note that the "mandate"--which forces everyone to buy government-approved health-care insurance--violates one of "The Rules of Man," and it is a rule that is attacked in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Anyone who supports the "mandate" is not a good enough person or a smart enough person to be the U.S. president--the mandate is "enslavism," and the "mandate" allows government people--who are often and usually bad people, as history shows--decide what health care a person can get, and that is bad.
copyright c. 2018
Date published: October 10, 2018
The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan 49721
The United States of America
To see the next edition of T.H.A.T.,
click on: T.H.A.T. #175.
To see the previous edition of T.H.A.T.,
click on: T.H.A.T. #173.
To see the catalog page for T.H.A.T. editions,
click on: T.H.A.T..
To see information about the news business in
the country and its failures and its betrayal of
the American public, click on: T.H.A.T. #55.
To go to the main page of The Hologlobe Press,
click on: www.hologlobepress.com.
For further reading, you should see the document
entitled Never Forget These Media Darlings ? --
A Guide for the Individual in the United
States of America, which can reached by
using this link: Media.
For further reading, you should see the document
entitled Film and Television Production
Tax Credits: The Bad Side of the Issue,
which can be reached through this link:
For further reading, you should see the document
entitled THOUGHTS AND STATEMENTS
ABOUT THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA for the individual woman and the
individual man, which can be reached by
hitting this link: Thoughts.
For further reading, you should see the document
entitled THOUGHTS AND PIECES OF
LOGIC for the individual woman and the
individual man, which can be reached by
hitting this link: Logic.
For further reading, you should see the document
entitled Political Lessons for the Individual Woman
and the Individual Man in the United States of
America, which can be reached by hitting this
For further reading, you should see the document
entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations
of Barack Obama, which can be reached at
this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the document
about censorship, Fairness?: A Guide for the
Individual Woman and the Individual Man
in the United States of America, which can be
reached at this link: Fairness.
For further reading, you should see the document
entitled National Health Care and Mass Failure:
The Reasons it is a Dead Issue, which can be
reached at this link: Health.
For further reading, you should see the document
entitled A Collection of Words--Just Words--
That Show Dangerous People, which can be
reached through this link: Words.
Keep in mind: T.H.A.T. documents and Michigan
Travel Tips documents published since the middle
of 2008 contain more quotations and statements
of Barack Obama's that you should see. To see
the editions of Michigan Travel Tips, you should
go to the catalog page, which can be reached by
hitting this link: Travel.