I will keep this as short as possible. After all, I am not good enough to have an article the length of a columnist in a newspaper. I am only one of the “others” who writes letters to editors and restricted to a certain length. If more people would read newspapers and the columnists which ONCE were part of the newspapers, this nation might be doing better than it is. Only hope will tell.
The PBS documentary series about Pioneers of Television, like all other PBS documentaries, has been great. A learning tool to enhance the brain cells in our skull! Mom always said, use the brain God gave you. Or. Mind over matter is what Dr. Peale’s message about power of positive thinking was about, not about wishful thinking.
The Pioneers series is on every Monday night. Here in the Binghamton area, it is broadcast on WSKG. Oh, that’s right. Don’t talk about broadcast television because the captains of industry have defined streaming television as what the “in” crowd should like. I don’t follow the “in” crowd, so there. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Each week it is a different topic. The comedy. The drama. The variety show (now there is an antiquated thing) which we need today rather than the manure piled in our faces with violence, violence, and more violence. Guns and bombs, too. No wonder we have a violent society. Blame the guns, but ignore this prevalent manure in the faces of Americans. I don’t blame the guns, except the automatic weapons which should not be available. I blame the captains of industry over the media who find they can make more money from violence and lies on television. Is it that the ones watching are sickos or the ones at the top, with money, are sickos? You might guess my answer.
At any rate, my messages are long because, as with this last part, I diverged into the topic of variety shows on television. Sorry. My apologies.
What I have INTENDED to focus on is the episode in the Pioneers of Television series on evening soap operas. Those old enough to remember may recall the ones about the elitist fat pigs, or Dallas, Dynasty, Falcon Crest (I loved Falcon Crest because it starred Ronald Reagan’s first wife, Jane Wyman; I loved watching her more than her one-time husband). Middle class (upper) was one titled Knot’s Landing. In these pioneers, I would take a nighttime soap opera out of Australia (ran from 2008-2013), Packed to the Rafters, because it demonstrates the TRUE struggles of the financially strapped Middle Class, not the upper Middle Class. It demonstrated the fighting which can occur within a family, but how ultimately a family CAN pull together. It represents a model of reality which DOES exist in some families. So this program is not an example of “pioneers” of evening soap opera, but mention it as a later edition of evening soap opera, after the 1980s and 1990s.
On this Pioneers documentary, Mary Martin’s son and star of Dallas, Larry Hagman, was interviewed (as were Patrick Duffy who played little brother, Bobby Ewing, and other members of the Dallas cast, during years long after their “pioneering effort”).
Hagman’s comments pretty much go along with the egomaniac character he portrayed, JR Ewing. He bragged that the series Dallas was more responsible for “tear down that wall, Mr. Gorbachev” than the credit given to Ronald Reagan for making that statement.
Perhaps Hagman is correct? Well, by saying this, he identifies one of the problems of America today. One-minded thinking, whether correct or not. Many examples of this exist today Hochul is terrible due to ONE THING. Yet, all the nasty crap Trump, Rick the Prick, McConnell, DeSatan, and others do and we look the other way. With Repugnicans, we look the other way. With Democrats, one-track minds zero in on ONE THING, ignoring all the good things. Hagman may be correct, but there are other examples which validate that wall falling, besides JR Ewing and Ronald Reagan.
1. The Coca-Cola company began to extend itself worldwide. It expanded its sales in communist Soviet Union. The common folk loved it and drank it up, while, according to Hagman, the wealthy at that time (and yes, in spite of claims that there are no classes in a communist system, that is liar, liar, pants on fire).
2. The Coca-Cola company put forth advertisements with the Hillside Singers about the world singing in harmony. If the Soviet common folk viewed the ads, it could have been more from Voice of America, not JR Ewing or Soviet television. Perhaps?
3. It was written that Soviet dictators like Breshnev, like JR Ewing, owned vacation homes. The common folk, or “comrades,” did not because they could not afford them. Do I believe that the common folk of Russia, today, own the same type of vacation home which dictator Putin likely owns? No. Has it improved since the days of JR Ewing? Maybe. But by how much?
4. There were secretive lousy wealthy ones from the Soviet Union infiltrating Western society, long before JR Ewing. So JR Ewing did not create them. They already existed. They were considered better than their “comrades.”
With these four examples (and there could be more), I have to conclude that it is possible Larry Hagman’s remarks are not quite accurate. That historical evidence over time can prove he was not accurate in his statement.
Interestingly enough, the documentary also mentions that brother Bobby Ewing was so popular on the series that when they tried to “kill him off,” fans around the world objected. So, they made the “death scene” a dream, at the beginning of the following series. The documentary goes on to say that Bobby Ewing was the alternative to the greed of JR Ewing. In fact, that Bobby Ewing proved that business could be run WITHOUT greed and selfishness. I was one of the fans of Bobby Ewing, plus his wife (played by Victoria Principal???). I also felt sorry for the way JR’s wife, Suellen was treated by the greedy bastard, JR.
If many fans around the world loved Bobby, the one who proved it does not take greed to run a business, then why do we have so much greed from money-worshipers today who are attempting to dictate our lives? If today’s world and the crumbling of the iron curtain was done because of a love of JR Ewing, who really were the ones who loved him and why do they have so much power, as does Putin and other former communists who run Russia today and work to destroy Ukraine? Greed. Selfishness. Egomaniacs. Sure. Likely modeled after JR Ewing.
But what about the fan base, primarily common folk, who loved Bobby Ewing? They don’t worship money and don’t have as much money, so they evidently don’t have the right to control the lives of the world with a Bobby Ewing attitude. Perhaps Larry Hagman’s statement is correct, but only in the sense that those like JR Ewing and their money worship are controlling society. The influence of Putin over America might be part of it. But what about the wealthy moles in the USA an Western civilization who are lethal to our Western society, out of love for and worship of money? What about the Russian Orthodox and other churches who put more emphasis on money and don’t help those in the world whom Jesus Christ wanted to help, but help the wealthy greedy selfish egomaniac money worshipers/lovers like Putin and others, such as Trump, DeSantis, Rick the Prick, the Bush family… other Repugnicans. They don’t give one damn about the human race, only about their definition of being human. Actually they don’t know what it means to be a civilized human being.
Once again. Perhaps Larry Hagman was somewhat correct in his statement on Pioneers of Television. But he does not have a comment which is the end-all.
Side note. Larry Hagman’s mom, Mary Martin, played the role of BOY, not a girl. Peter Pan. She also was the original Maria Von Trapp in the Broadway production of The Sound of Music. We know about Julie Andrews as Maria in the film version. And Julie Andrews also played a role in Victor/Victoria, too. Stuff that up your rear, DeSatan of Florida.
I am not backing down on pointing out the trash of egomaniacs like DeSatan of Florida. To Jebbie. I insist on standing my ground on this issue, except for one thing. I don’t carry a gun. You perverted ones who work to destroy America and its democracy and replace it with an authoritarian regime similar to the Hitler and Stalin regimes.
You bastard, Tucker Carlson, can invent all the crap you wish to invent about Pete Buttigieg, and then sit behind a smoke screen of hatred for gay folk and homosexuality. That way, you can validate what you say in the form of lies, with that smoke screen present. Also, I have evidence that same-sex couples do a great job of raising their adopted children and those children are NOT always gay. That is because God is the Creator, not humans. I can prove that, in many cases, gay couples do a better job in raising kids than many heterosexual couples, especially those who fear their child is gay and want to ban anything in the schools and in books which might help young kids come to grips with who they are. Fear drives these bastard heterosexuals. Or are some of them doing this because they are actually REPRESSED homosexuals? They are the worst ones. 
Tioga Herald 
Commentary about Economist Magazine Article about “Creative Destruction”
Dear Editors:
It is difficult to wrap my arms around one of your writer’s words of “creative destruction.”
My best understanding is that you are defending the push by Reagan with his supply-side economics and deregulation. So, therefore, your writer points out that America has been successful in following this process described as “creative destruction.”
Your writer says America is still the strongest economic power in the world, even China. Perhaps your writer should read a book by Fareed Zakaria (The Post-American World). Learning from historical example, Zakaria reviews what happened in Ancient China to cause the implosion of China and fall into poverty, thus removing it from the world scene.
The similarities are amazing. Moving to rid the nation of small business, the Mandarin business class, and consolidation at the top, the nation fell apart. Supply-side Reaganomics and deregulation has done the same thing in America. The deregulation made the merger and acquisitions of small corporations, sometimes local (i.e., local entities for electric, telecommunications, retail sales, etc.), have caused close-to-considering nationalization and supply-side economics in which those corporations no longer care about consumers on the demand-side of a capitalist market.
The R&D efforts which once funded the smaller corporations (by means of tax credits for R&D) have been replaced by strong dictatorial control which has removed pensions from what might be considered part of the American “Mandarin” class and given the money as bonuses and 1000% increases to those at the top. What is described here permeates many other industries and companies (see Ellen Schultz book, The Retirement Heist).
Furthermore, I have observations and evidence about the impact of centralized corporate conglomerates close to monopoly status. Some of the observations are personal and involve family business. Other evidence I have provided in many of my writings about this topic for more than a decade.
With this being said and considering your publication is out of a nation with a long history of “royalty-based” supply-side economics (feudal ownership which was thrown away by those in the northeast of America (see A Free Soil — A Free People: he Anti-Rent War in Delaware County, New York – referencing the anti-rent, anti-feudal wars in upstate New York in the 1840s), perhaps the ideas of your writer are thrust forward so as to validate America’s move, by way of Reagan, to deregulation and the ultimate slippery slope of supply-side economics? The justification is more for the “feudal” land policies in Dixie, called plantations, where the owners were too much like a Charles Dickens character, Ebeneezer Scrooge – cheap, cheap, cheap, and unwilling to balance supply and demand, whether it be economics OR labor.
What people do not realize is that when Reagan pushed for deregulation, many people said, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Our small corporation was not broke. In fact it was a cash cow, due to the hard work of the people who labored to make it better. How nice to honor us with a severance package which did not last long, but the axe men at the top walked away, skimming money (is that not stealing? Perhaps?) in the millions of dollars, so as to “deregulate” and move to M&A for the sake of monopoly.
We were against the deregulation so we were against change. The definition of conservative: “averse to change.” That would have made us conservative, not liberal. Liberal defined: “open to new ideas.” Deregulation was a “new idea.” No wonder people are so confused. Liberal: “…a political and social philosophythat promotes…democracy, and free enterprise.” Ultimately, democracy with the words free enterprise demonstrates an oxymoron. Free enterprise left unregulated destroys democracy, as we see happening today. Perhaps Reagan was the liberal but called himself conservative? All of his charismatic talk pushed this world into chaos beyond just the political spectrum.
A reviewer of the Zakaria book says,
According to your writer, America is still doing better than China. But the question remains as to how well it will stand up when it is face-to-face, with a supply-side economics, with communist supply-side economics of China? Is there not a better possibility America could stand up to China if we were to use “creative destruction” (i.e., like the 1840s anti-rent rebellions) to return us to deregulation and bring back capitalism as it should be – supply AND demand? For America, history has proven this to be true.
Sincerely,
Category:
Commentary
Leave a comment