In The I Can’t Believe This Department by Mitch Santell
Usually, when someone is questioned in a public setting, they like to be able to give an answer. For some reason, Kamala Harris is so full of herself, that she can’t even let anyone get a word in edgewise.
The way that Kamala Harris asks and answers questions is sort of like watching Rush Hour with Comedian Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan.
Kamala Harris would not be a good choice for America because she has not had enough experience and she seems to have a problem with asking questions. Every time I hear or watch Kamala Harris I cringe.
There is another part of Kamala Harris’s background that bothers me. What is it? Oh, you already know what it is right? Kamala Harris’s affair with San Francisco Mayer Willie Brown who admitted to having an affair with the Senator.
Yes I said yes
Harris got her start in 1994by having an affair with slimy Willie Brown, who was serving as the California Assembly Speaker and then became the mayor of San Fransico. Brown was 60 years old and Harris was 29 when their affair began. Harris was so brazen that she came out publicly as his date at his 60th birthday party, despite his wife of 36 years being in attendance.
Harris slept with Brown for one reason; she used the corrupt San Francisco mayor to launch her rise to power. Daily Caller reports, “As Brown’s time as speaker drew to a close in 1994, he named Harris to the California Medical Assistance Commission, a job that came with a $72,000 annual salary. Brown had previously appointed her to the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.”
She “was described by several people at the Capitol as Brown’s girlfriend,” the Los Angeles Times reported at the time. Although that job paid nearly $98,000, Harris’ term was set to expire in five weeks when Brown tapped her for the Medical Assistance Commission slot. That body met only monthly, and the $72,000 position was not considered a full-time job.
Streaming Content Comments on FilmStruck by Mitch Santell
FilmStruck has been a fantastic service. As a hardcore film buff, it has always been FilmStruck that I go to first for classic films.
Sorry folks, FilmStruck is going away. Over the past 60 days, I have noticed that Netflix and HBO are not my first choice for movies.
There will be nothing like FilmStruck ever again, thanks for letting me vent.
Major filmmakers such as Guillermo del Toro, Barry Jenkins, and Edgar Wright have already lamented the upcoming loss of FilmStruck, the streaming service for foreign cinema and classic film, and now cinephiles are rallying to save the platform. An online petition entitled “Keep FilmStruck Alive” launched in the wake of the announcement of FilmStruck’s closing and has earned over 5,300 signatures and counting. The petition is seeking 7,500 total signatures.
“FilmStruck has given cinephiles an indispensable resource for appreciating cinema, and provided so much joy to all those who thought that many of these movies would never see the light of a streaming platform,” petition leader Kevin Bahr wrote in a statement. “FilmStruck is not just a niche market, it is a massive archive dedicated to keeping art of the past alive. … It deserves to live, not only to provide an outlet for film lovers of the past but also to create new fans through the next several generations, and perhaps open some more eyes along the way.”
The Philadelphia Story, a Hollywood Classic is typical of what is shown at FilmStruck. Not only does FilmStruck stream world class movies, but they also provide a lot of trailers, documentaries, and commentaries on most of these films.
Reflections on Dystopian California by Mitch Santell
The State of California is a bit out of control as it relates to ending freedom of speech. You are going to watch news agencies, independent bloggers and social influencers placing their server outside of California and outside of the USA.
The California Senate and State Assembly recently passed S.B. 1424, the “Internet: social media: advisory group” act. Think of the entire State of California acting as a “safe space” for free speech. My prediction? S.B. 1424 once signed is going to trigger all kinds of lawsuits as people have “their feelings hurt.” My insight? Start looking now for a Non-California based platform.
What companies are going to be affected most? Weebly will be touched and manipulated by the bill; I love the Weebly platform, their home office is in San Francisco.
The issue for companies like Weebly is how they will enforce the new rules of S.B. 1424?
California is one step away from going down the unconstitutional road of government-mandated censorship of Internet speech. The California Senate and State Assembly recently passed S.B. 1424, the “Internet: social media: advisory group” act. This fake news advisory act is now on the desk of Governor Jerry Brown for his signature.
According to Section 3085 of the legislation:
The Attorney General shall, subject to the limitations of subdivision (d), establish an advisory group consisting of at least one member of the Department of Justice, Internet-based social media providers, civil liberties advocates, and First Amendment scholars, to do both of the following:
(a) Study the problem of the spread of false information through Internet-based social media platforms.
(b) Draft a model strategic plan for Internet-based social media platforms to use to mitigate the spread of false information through their platforms.
It’s hard to imagine those voting for the bill were motivated by good intentions. In any case, good intentions are not enough. Is it hard to imagine the results of the law will be censorship of views that politicians disagree with and views critical of politicians?
Most likely, Californians are not concerned about “fact-checking” content like “a mile is 5290 feet” or an appeal to form a flat Earth Facebook group; such content poses no threat to entrenched interests. Instead, “fact-checking” will be deployed against those who express doubt, for example, about climate change, vaccine safety, or “educating” children about gender dysphoria.
If you doubt that censorship is the aim of the bill, consider the even more draconian measures that an earlier version of the bill required. Social media sites would have needed to develop “a plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information.”
The First Amendment makes no provisions for government judging the validity of speech either directly or through mandated “fact-checking.” In legitimate cases of defamation, legal remedies are available, but the bar for a successful lawsuit is high.
Why Authoritarians Always Suppress Speech
In his new discussion paper, “The Mirage of Democratic Socialism,” economist Kristian Niemietz of the Institute of Economic Affairs counts “more than two dozen attempts (not counting the very short-lived ones) to build a socialist society.”
“They all,” Niemietz writes, “led to varying degrees of economic failure.” With that economic failure always came “varying degrees of repression and political authoritarianism,” as well as severe limitations on “freedom of choice and personal autonomy in the economic sphere.”
Authoritarians, including so-called “democratic socialists,” must always suppress speech. Why? Human beings have boundless preferences and competing goals. These preferences and goals are sorted out by either socialist planners or impersonal market processes.
FCC head honcho, Ajit Pai, didn’t mince words in comments regarding California’s recent passing of a tough net neutrality bill. In his keynote speech for neoconservative policy organization Maine Heritage Policy Center, Pai called California’s SB 822 “illegal” and said it “poses a risk to the rest of the country.”
Pai also hinted that he’d be coming for California should SB 822, seen as the toughest net neutrality law in the nation, receive the governor’s signature, as it’s expected to in the next two weeks.
Federal only supersedes state law on specific issues which the US Constitution delegates to the federal government. That’s the Tenth Amendment. In this instance, the FCC can’t just roll in and pull rank on California, no matter what Pai promises his right-wing, internet-carpetbagging cronies.
Many years ago a dear friend of mine in the movie business told me that Ben Stiller paid extra money not to have anyone look at him while on a movie set. While I thought this was a bit extreme, I think Netflix has set a whole new standard.
The new sexual harassment policy started by Netflix is a bit overboard. It all boils down to this when you are in production you have 5 seconds to look away; otherwise, a charge of “sexual harassment” can be filed against you by management.
As part of an effort to further the goals of the #MeToo movement and enforce more stringent sexual harassment guidelines in the workplace, Netflix has independently implemented a series of feminism-inspired rules for some of their employees who work on shows like “Black Mirror” in the United Kingdom.
Among the most bizarre of these new rules is Netflix’s directive to film crew members that they should never “look at anyone for longer than five seconds.” This appears to be an attempt to stop all flirting in the workplace, and to be fair, it is quite hard to imagine how sexual harassment could take place at Netflix in the absence of normal social interactions where people look at each other while having conversations that last longer than five seconds.
“The people of the world are sick and tired of being set against each other by powerful criminals who want us divided so they can continue to rape, steal from and exploit us.
Currently the gravest threat to the world is the corrupt mainstream media who has been taken over by a powerful cabal. They have been lying to us for decades, twisted our minds and led us down a path of darkness. The evidence is all around you.
The only way we can defeat this evil is by removing their power and turning them off. They are named the “Mockingbird Media” after a criminal operation of the same name to infiltrate journalism and take control of the narratives.
The only way out of this prison is to read the crumbs dropped via the NSA Intelligence Program otherwise known as Q.”
I’ve followed the alternative and independent media since the early 1990’s. Often I think about those who fought so long and hard to keep free speech alive in America.
Over the past week, it has been fascinating to watch the frontal attack on the Alex Jones Channel as it was dumped from YouTube as well as his flagship station 90.1, being fined 15,000 dollars by the FCC over the past 48 hours.
What do I think?
My answer is that I think Alex Jones is a test case to see what you can get away with on the air. My observation is that Alex Jones will remain on the air, it is simply going to be like everyone else, on the internet only.
In my book, this is not a bad thing because if you take a look at infowars dot com, you will notice that they are ranked by Alexa in the top 1000 sites in the USA and ranked in the top 3300 websites globally on the internet out of 1.2 Billion IP addresses, so that is amazing.
As I tuned into Alex’s daily show (it’s funny I stopped listening to Alex Jones over three years ago), Mike Adams was just brought on to share his outrage at what is happening to Alex Jones.
As usual, I not only love to put out content, I also consume it and record various streams daily so yes, I said yes, I was able to capture this brief clip of Alex Jones and Mike Adams together.
Feel free to let me know your thoughts or check out other venues that are reporting on this. Here is the clip!
The clip is approximately 6 Minutes and 35 Seconds.