Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Audio Pedia: Biography of Faye Dunaway

Source: Audio Pedia-
Source:The Daily Review

I guess when I think of great dramatic comedic actress’s and what I mean by that is actress’s who combine both dramatic and comedic abilities in the same role, not actress’s who are great at both comedy and drama, but women who do both in the same roles, I think of Faye Dunaway, Liz Taylor, Lauren Bacall and a few others. But Faye is towards the top of this list if not at the top. Because she has this great ability at putting things exactly as they are with real feeling, but doing it in a great comedic and humorous way as well. Like the line she had in Network when she tells the Max Schumacher character (played by William Holden) that, “you aren’t the worst lay I’ve ever had. God knows I’ve had worst.”

Faye Dunaway is this tall gorgeous, baby-faced adorable actress, with this great dramatic and comedic abilities. Who seems to specialize at playing very cute gorgeous women who are very sharp and have a lot of energy and who are also smart asses. I swear to God (even though I’m Agnostic) that if Faye were a career soap opera actress she would be the best ever at that. She would have won have multiple awards for that every year and been on the top soap if not top show on TV every year. Best Actress should almost be her title. She’s really the best at whatever she does at least from her era. Lets call it the Baby Boom. Network is one of my favorite movies and other than maybe Peter Finch she was the best actor/actress in that movie. And Network is the perfect example of what dramatic comedy is. A movie that takes on serious subjects, but does it in a humorous way.

In many ways I see Faye Dunaway as a satirist. Someone who uses both drama and comedy to talk about serious subjects and does it in a very entertaining and sexy way. Chinatown with Jack Nicholson is another example of this where detective movies tend to be funny and Jack Nicholson is pretty funny in really anything he does so putting together with Faye Dunaway is an all-star combination. Network is Fay’s best and most famous part and where she was really the best on a great all-star cast with a great production team. But she’s had a lot of other great roles that’s shown all of her great abilities. Like Chinatown, The Towering Inferno. She’s a Hall of Fame actress who could’ve gone into the Hall of Fame thirty-years ago and I hope she’s around forever.
Audio Pedia: Biography of Faye Dunaway

Atomic TV: 'Hard Copy- February, 1991: Charles Manson Pirated Guitat Playing Video in the Jokey Pr.ison Video'

Source:Atomic TV- From a 1991 Hard Copy special report about serial murderer Charles Manson.
"Duping old VHS tapes, stumbled across this Charles Manson segment from Hard Copy. He does his crazy act in a smuggled ja-il video, and plays some guitar.
Please let me know how you stumbled on this video - were you googling Manson after the Tarantino movie or was this link mentioned in a blog? Thanks! Check out Atomic TV too:Atomic TV."

Source:Hard Copy- From a 1991 special report about serial murderer Charles Manson.
From Atomic TV

The Manson murders twenty years later. Actually twenty years after The Manson Family murderers were convicted of those evil murders.

I mean when I think of evil serial murderers Charlie Manson and Ted Bundy are at the top of my list at least when you're talking about individuals. The KKK as a group are probably just as bad though. Manson ordering murders of people because they were literally part of the successful establishment. Imagine that as your defense in court. But not only that, but ordering the murders of the wrong people. He wanted Dennis Wilson murdered and wasn't aware that Wilson had moved out and other people moved in. Roman Polanski and his girlfriend Sharon Tate.

Charlie Manson wasn't a dumb person. Certainly uneducated and not educated in the traditional sense. But we're talking about someone who didn't functioned properly mentally. Who lacked moral character, actually didn't really have any. Who believed he was above the law and that somehow these murders was benefiting society or something. Even though again he ordered the murders of the wrong people in the sense that it was Dennis Wilson that he wanted murdered.

And the Manson crew didn't realize that Wilson no longer lived there and that new group of people are now using that home. The Manson Family soldiers I guess who were made up of high school and college dropouts and people who were kicked out by their parents, didn't understand that.

Charlie Manson created a cult of evil an even culture of evil. I guess he was pissed off at society after leaving prison for the last time in his life and was looking for a way to get back at the people that he believed wronged him. We're talking about a man who grew up in prison and at 32 in 1967 had spent more than half his life in prison. And even though prison was always the best and most comfortable place for him in life he now believed he was going to punish the people for sending him there.

And Manson finds his societal dropouts in the Manson soldiers with the young women, Tex Watson and others and now had the crew to commit the evil acts that he didn't have the balls to do himself. Charlie Manson is the perfect example of why we have life in prison and life without parole in prison. Because you don't want people like that living freely ever again.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Drew David: Intimate Portrait Angie Dickinson

When I think of Angie Dickinson I’m staring at those eyes and locked into that voice. She reminds me a of smaller Gena Rowlands, another women who just looks and sounds incredible, but who is also a hell of an actress. A true goddess who is both hot and baby-faced adorable where they don’t seem to age and always look like very young women even if they’re in their forties and fifties. Gena is a bigger and taller Angie, but she might be just as adorable. When you look this great and you also can act and make people laugh and sing, you’ll never have to worry about finding a job in Hollywood. Just as long as you don’t piss off the wrong people. And an actress will always be able to be either on TV, or doing movies, or both.

There two movies and perhaps a certain TV show that you’re familiar with when I think of Angie Dickinson. Ocean’s Eleven from 1960, where she plays the wife of compulsive gambler Danny Ocean (played by Frank Sinatra) and The Chase from 1966 where she plays the girlfriend of the sheriff. (played by Marlin Brando) She has a small part in Ocean’s, but a key one and has a great scene where she tells of Danny’s mistress on the phone. When the mistress is confessing to her that she’s seeing her husband. And Angie tells the mistress that, “what you’re saying just makes me want him more.” She has a much bigger role in The Chase where she’s the girlfriend of the sheriff and is very close to Marlin in that movie.

But I believe Angie’s Dickinson’s most important accomplishment to Hollywood is Police Women. Where she plays a police detective sergeant in that movie. That show comes out in 1974 three years before Charlie’s Angels and she plays this gorgeous sexy smart detective sergeant on that show. Who leads police investigation’s and kicks ass at the same time. Police detective shows with female leads now are common and have been since the 1990s. But a big reason for that was Police Women and Angie Dickinson. She showed that you could look like a goddess and also be smart and professional and do important jobs in society and be in charge. And because of Angie NBC, CBS and ABC, (and perhaps even FOX) are always looking for that new hit female detective show.

Angie is simply one of the cutest, hottest, sexiest actress’s with the great voice to match of all-time. I could listen to her read from a phone book, or a tennis rule book and I would end up being fascinated with that bland material that would be great reading material for insomniacs if it was read by just about everyone else. But she makes everything look and sound interesting simply because of who she is. She was great on the Alfred Hitchcock Hour in the early 1960s, playing a women who simply marries men for money and tries to get her latest boyfriend to murder her husband. She’s a true Hollywood Goddess in the sense that she’s an incredibly attractive women, but also a great actress. And she’s one of the top actress’s of her generation and in the business today.

Notes on Liberty: Brandon Christensen: Trying to Make Sense of Left & Right

Source:The New Democrat

I agree somewhat with Brandon Christensen on this, but I would add a few things and put it differently. I think one of the problems with Americans politics is that a lot of Americans don’t understand it. And people get labeled with political labels that don’t reflect their political ideology accurately for good and bad. The so-called mainstream media is a big cause of this problem, because many times they don’t understand the political labels, factions and ideologies that they talk and report about.

For example if you believe Barack Obama is a foreigner who was born in another country with no real proof of his American citizenship, you get labeled as a Conservative. Even though no real Conservative would want to have anything to do with the Birthers. Because of course they believe the President was born in Hawaii. If you believe in political correctness and that any critical speech that is directed at any minority group or minority in America is somehow not only a form of bigotry and hate, but that it should be censored and that government should step in shut down that type of speech and punish the people who express it, you get labeled as a Liberal. Even though the First Amendment was written by the Founding Liberals of America who gave us Freedom of Speech. And Freedom of Speech is and has always been the first Liberal Value.

If you look at the American political spectrum it goes from the Far-Left where you have Marxists who are Far-Left as people can get and then move a little right and you’ll find Democratic Socialists/Social Democrats. To Progressives who are still on the mainstream Left in America if you think New Deal and Great Society and move right from that and you’ll find where I am the Center-Left where Liberals sit. And then move to the Center-Right and you’ll find the Conservatives. A bit further right than that and you’ll find the Neoconservatives. Neoconservatives can be Far-Right as well if they believe that America should police the world and expand democracy through force and that national security is more important than individual freedom and civil liberties and are with the Christian-Right on the social issues. Go Far-Right and you’ll find the Christian-Right in America. Who want their religious beliefs and lifestyle enforces by government on the rest of the country.

The reason why Liberals are center-left and Conservatives are center-right and again I’m talking about Liberals in the real classical sense, Social Liberals who believe in both social justice and individual freedom people like Wendell Willkie, Jack Kennedy and many others and Conservatives like Barry Goldwater, Bill Buckley, Ron Reagan and many others, is because both sides are actually fairly close politically. Share similar principles, goals, values and even agree about government in the sense that neither sides wants a big government interfering into people’s personal and economic affairs. Both sides believe in our federal form of government, federal system and even federalism. We even tend to agree on a lot of social issues outside of lets say abortion, but don’t want government telling us what to do. We differ on the role of government. How should government be used to serve, not direct as many people as possible.

The reason why Liberals and Conservatives tend to look bad the with average American voter lets say who is not a political junky, or a hyper-partisan and tend to vote based on who they believe best represents them and not their party, is because the fringes on both sides who see bipartisanship and governing as surrender who promote big statist views on both sides get labeled either as Liberal, or Conservative based on what side of the political aisle they’re on. According to the mainstream media today’s Liberals are big government Socialists, or Statists who think people are stupid and need big government to manage both their economic and personal affairs for them. And Conservatives are people who want America to police and dominate the world and replace the U.S. Constitution with their version of the Bible. And throw all poor people off of public assistance, cut off all immigration and are all bigots.

When the facts are Liberals are Center-Left. People who believe in freedom and opportunity for all. Again individual freedom, plus social justice. Using government to expand freedom, not government dependence. And Conservatives believe in individual freedom and using the private sector even through taxpayer subsides to see to it that more Americans can achieve freedom as well. While the Neo-Marxists on the Left are the real big government statists. People who believe in political correctness and a form of leftist fascism, as well as a nanny state to make sure everyone in living healthy. And a welfare state to manage our economic affairs for us. With the big government statists on the Right being the Christian-Right in America. A combination of rightist Protestants and Catholics. But the so-called mainstream media won’t tell you these things, because that would require them to do their homework. And actually understand what liberalism and conservatism actually is.

Monday, September 28, 2015

Reason Magazine: Elizabeth Nolan Brown: Vice President Joe Biden Bashes Abortion, Defends Religious Freedom


I have a problem with Vice President Biden’s I guess latest position on abortion saying that abortion is not only always wrong, but then life starts at conception. Meaning when the mother of the fetus is actually pregnant. If he was anti-choice on abortion all together, I wouldn’t have a problem with this position. But I think someone who says life starts at conception, but is still in favor of choice when it comes to abortion, is essentially saying that women have a right to murder their babies. If you believe that life starts at conception then how could also you believe in choice when it comes to abortion and not be in favor of murder at least on a limited basis. I can understand why an Irish-Catholic like Joe Biden would want to appeal to Democrats if he runs for president. But this is not how you do it.

Joe Biden’s entire 36 year career in the U.S. Senate which is also his whole Congressional career he was pro-choice on abortion. By the way his first year in the Senate 1973 is when Roe V. Wade was also decided that gave American women the right to decide for themselves whether to complete their pregnancies, or end them on their own. Then Senator Biden always argued that reproductive rights and the right to choose on abortion was always been between the women and the doctor. That this was not up to government to interfere in these most personal of decisions. Which is my position as well just as long as women are paying for this choice and not putting the cost of these decisions on the backs of taxpayers . But I don’t take that position, because I believe abortion is murder and that I believe women, or men have that right.

It seems to me at the very least that if you’re position on abortion is that you’re pro-choice, then you take that position because you don’t believe that life starts at conception. Whether you’re Catholic, or come from any other faith, or don’t practice religion at all. That life starts at the very least towards the end of pregnancies which is why you would be against what is called partial-birth abortion. Or life starts at birth. So of you take that position you’re not saying that women have the right to murder their babies, because you believe a fetus doesn’t become a baby until it’s actually born. But if you say, “of course life starts at conception, but so what this is the women’s decision and if she wants to murder her baby by aborting it, that’s her choice.” A position like that would be hard to defend.

The White House: ‘President Obama Addresses The United Nations General Assembly’

Source:The White House- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) addressing the United Nations in New York City.

“President Obama delivered an address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2014.”

Assuming the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action goes into effect (and the Islamic Republic of Iran has all the incentive in the world to make that happen) I believe this will be an opportunity for the world with the United States leading the effort, but not being the only player in it, where we use international diplomacy and military coalition power to expand human rights and fight authoritarianism and terrorism around the world.

We could see the days of unilateral, preemptive war are over (otherwise known as the Iraq War) and that instead America as the liberal democratic leader in the world works with Europe and even the Arab League to end authoritarianism. And oust dictators who would rather murder their own people than voluntarily leave office.

That military options are always on the table, but never the first option until no better options are available. With the developed and responsible world acting together and many times that is America and Europe we can end the conflict in Syria both with the Syrian dictatorship there and the fight against ISIS.

We don’t stabilize the war by invading Syria and attempting to occupy another country about the size of California. But working with Turkey, Kurdistan and Iraq, to defeat ISIS there and get Bashar Al-Assad out-of-power there and hopefully install a responsible, transitional, government, there with Syrians governing their own country. Instead of the Arab League, or United Nations, European Union, or even United States trying to do that for them.

Liberal internationalism, which is what President Obama was advocating for in this speech, is not about being a hawk at least not in the neoconservative sense. Or being a dove in the social democratic sense, but being smart with all of your available resources that you have including your allies.

What Hillary Clinton and others call Smart Power, where you’re strong not so you are strong enough to police the world and always use military force. And where military force is always your first option if not only option. But you’re strong enough to defend your own interests including your own homeland and help your allies who need it and are trying to do the same thing. As well as potential future allies who are simply fighting for their own human rights.

What President Obama is saying is that the free and responsible world should reject and fight ISIS and other authoritarians. And that the United States will play our special and strong role, but we can’t and won’t defeat ISIS ourselves. That Europe and Arabia, needs to play their role as well, as well as Asian powers like India, Pakistan, Japan, Korea, Australia and others. As well as powers in Africa that are emerging as responsible countries with strong developing economies like the Federal Republic of Nigeria and others.

America is the liberal democratic leader in the world a role that we’ve had at least since the end of World War II, but we’re not the only player when it comes for fighting for freedom and human rights. That other countries need to play their part as well. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Jim Reid: The Man Inside 1958: Anita Ekberg and Jack Palance

Source:The Daily Review

Patrick (No Last Name) played by Sam Carter is a jewel thief who pulls off a big heist in (somewhere in Europe) Europe. Milo March (played by Jack Palance is a private detective hired to track down Patrick and the jewels that he stole. Trudi Hall (Swedish Goddess Anita Ekberg Miss Sweden) is also after the jewels that Patrick stole. Milo and Trudi run into each other and find out they're both after the same score, but have different motivations and reasons for tracking it down. They also discover that people are after them, because they're after that jewelry score and decide to work together on this case. This is a fairly simple and I believe not a very well executed movie. But with a good plot and writing and besides it has Anita Ekberg and Jack Palance in it.

I saw a couple of Anita Ekberg movies this weekend. The Man Inside and 4 Four Texas that also had Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin in it. I know that a lot of people will probably disagree with me on this. But Anita is not the Swedish Marilyn Monroe and Diana Dors is not the English Marilyn Monroe. They were both better than Marilyn. Anita and Diana both grew up while remaining their hot baby-faced adorable goddess features with their great voices throughout their lives. Unlike like Marilyn who had a childish, or at least adolescent personality and maturity level to go with her baby-face up until the day she died in 1962 only at the age of 36. Anita, same generation as Marilyn lived to 83 and only died last year and look incredible her whole life and had a great career as an entertainer.

Saturday, September 26, 2015

CBS News: 60 Minutes Presents Crime and Punishment: The Capture of James Whitey Bulger

James Whitey Bulger
To say that James Whitey Bulger is not your average criminal would be like saying that Larry Bird isn’t your average basketball player. (Another famous Boston figure) I’m not a criminologist obviously and yes it also snows in Minnesota, (thanks Captain Obvious) but Whitey is a criminal genius. And if he gets to spend any real-time outside of his cell in the hell hole that he’s going to die in his fellow inmates are going to be able to learn a lot from him. Unless they’re serving life without in prison as well. Here’s a guy whose guilty of at least nineteen murders and yet up until recently hasn’t spent much of his life in prison. He’s been on the streets for most of his life.

I think the only way you can become a Nazi especially as an adult is like the guy in this story. Is that by in large you’re a good person and you’re doing well in life, but suddenly you find yourself out of work and your bills are piling up and you go years without at least a full-time job. You lose your home and perhaps now living a one-room apartment, or maybe in the basement of your parents home. And you’re trying to figure out where you go from there and you run in people you should have nothing to do with. And they start telling you about the dangers of the other races. In this case non-Caucasians in America especially non-Anglo Saxons. I have a hard time believing that a good person whose grown up with people from other races and ethnicities would suddenly become a racist for no apparent reason.

NFL Films: NY Giants Chronicles- The 1960s and 1970s

Source:The Daily Review

I believe Bob Papa had the best line when he said that the New York Giants by 1964 were in transition. The great teams and success that they had in the 1950s and early 1960s was gone by 1964. And Giants running back Alex Webster (not Barney Rubble) had a great line as well when he said in 64 that the Giants had a bunch of players who played a year too long. They were an aging team that was carrying a lot of aging veterans who were past their primes and should’ve retired after the 62 or 63 seasons and simply no longer had it in 64 and the Giants collapsed and finished in last place in 64. And guys like Y.A. Tittle, Frank Gifford and Alex Webster, all retire after the 64 season. Leaving the Giants being forced to start rebuilding in 65.

To give you an idea of how good the Giants were from 1964-80. They never made the playoffs and had I believe had two winning seasons. The worst team in the NFC East in the 1970s. Again one winning season and year after year competing with their arch-rival the Philadelphia Eagles for last place in the NFC East. Two of the biggest markets and cities in the country and two of the most storied franchises in the NFL and yet they were consistently competing for last place in the NFC East. I think the problem with the Giants of this era was that they fired Allie Sherman too soon after the 68 season and then not finding a good head coach for them until Ray Perkins in 1979. They had several different head coaches during this period that all had one thing in common. Losing season after losing season.

As great as Wellington Mara was for the New York Giants franchise he made a lot of mistakes in the 1960s and 70s. Not having the right general manager and head coach in the 1970s and poor drafting set this franchise way back. Also not finding a replacement for Yankee Stadium which was really a baseball park that the Giants shared with the guess who. All of these things that contributed to the Giants essentially being asleep as a franchise especially in the 1970s. Even the Chicago Bears who were pretty bad in this period as well-managed a couple of winning seasons and made the playoffs in the 1970s. But they did make a few good draft picks in the mid and late 1970s like Harry Carson, George Martin and Phil Simms that set them up well for the 1980s. But by in large the 1970s was a bad decade for the New York Giants.

The Lip TV: 'Whitey: The United States of America V. James J. Bulger'

Source:The Lip TV- talking about the life of Boston-Irish mobster James Whitey Bulger.

"WHITEY: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. JAMES J. BULGER is the documentary about infamous Boston gangster "Whitey" Bulger, and we get the first look at the movie, direct from its premiere at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival. Director Joe Berlinger explains to us the fascinating story of Bulger, the true story behind the inspiration for Jack Nicholson's character in the Departed, and the long manhunt and eventual apprehension of one of the FBI's most wanted fugitives in this BYOD." 

Source:Mob Video Vault- The Making of a Monster is also about Whitey Bulger.

Off the top of my head I don’t know of more successful (and I don’t mean that as a complement) Irish-American mobster than James Whitey Bulger. He is the baddest Irish gangster as far as the amount of damage that he’s done in his life to other people. Being personally responsible for at least nineteen murders. And not being convicted of any of them until his early eighties. 

Here’s a guy who started his criminal career in his early teens and was able to keep it going until his early eighties without spending much of that time in prison. We’re not talking about John Gotti, or some other uneducated Italian mobster. We’re talking about an educated intelligent mobster who used his knowledge of the real world to work the system during his criminal career.

The mind-control program that Whitey was part of in Federal prison in the 1950s certainly didn’t help him. And if he doesn’t go through that it would’ve been a great thing for society. He would have spent more time in prison as a result with fewer people being murdered by him. But he was already a bad guy to begin with that had no issues killing anyone who he thought was a threat no matter the consequences that came from it. Not so much to him, but the relatives and friends of his murder victims. 

The Federal prison mind-control program was a mistake and should have never been started. But you can’t say that is the reason why Whitey became the serial murderer that he became. Again, Whitey was doing horrible things before gong to Atlanta and then later Alcatraz.

You could say that Whitey Bulger is the worst piece of garbage that was ever thrown out (and I’m being nice) and again when it comes to his criminal career I would have a hard time arguing with that. But he did have people in his personal life that he loved and took care of. Long-term girlfriends and people who loved him. 

As they say, Whitey was someone who was able to compartmentalized. He didn’t bring his work and I guess evil at home which just made him even more dangerous. Because it meant people around him didn’t know who he really was and he really operated. And fewer people who could turn him in and put him away. 

Whitey isn’t the baddest Irish mobster because of all the people he murdered. But how he was able to murder all of those people. The intelligence and skills he brought to his criminal activities. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

AMC Backstory: The Making of a Legendary Comedy (2001)

Source:The Daily Review

Myra Breckinridge is one of those movies that looks better as it ages, because it was so ahead of its time. I think the makers of the film calculated wrong thinking that this is a 1970 movie probably made in 1969 and that this movie would be perfect for its time in the 1960s and the cultural and sexual revolutions. With young Americans experimenting and trying all sorts of different things even when it came to their sexuality. But very few people were talking about transgender sexuality and sex changes back then. It was very new and then you throw in all the pornography in the movie (which I personally don’t have a problem with) and it was a tough movie for a lot of people to see which is why it was a financial flop when it came out.

If this movie came out 25-30 years later perhaps even 20 years I think this movie would have been very successful. (Especially on Cinemax) I’ve seen this movie like ten times now and have blogged about it multiple times and it was one of my favorite comedies. I’m laughing through most of this movie with Raquel Welch being at her hottest, sexiest and cutest, all in the same movie. She was so funny in this movie and this is where you really get to see her sense of humor and great comedic timing. John Huston playing Buck Naked, I mean Buck Loner in this movie a sex starved, or sex addict head of an acting school. (Of all things) Getting blow jobs and sexual massages on the job and trying to run his school at the same time.

And of course you can’t talk about Myra Breckinridge without talking about Mae West. Where she also plays a sex starved star in the movie a man-loving women who can’t spend more than five seconds with a young stud (Tom Selleck) without making a pass at him. And of course you get to see Mae sing Hard to Handle which was perfect for her and her character in this movie. And of course Gore Vidal with without his book with the same title this movie isn’t made. (Which might not have been a bad thing) But his great comedic ability and willingness to take big risks is how he writes the book that he did and how this movie gets made. I believe movies are judged by how they look as the years go by and later in history. And Myra Breckinridge to me looks like a great comedy.

Friday, September 25, 2015

CBS News: Baseball Great Yogi Berra Dead at 90: An icon of Sports and Quotes

I think it would be fairly easy just to write a piece about Yogi Berra featuring a lot of his great one-liners. But we're talking about one of the top 3-5 catchers in the history of Major League Baseball. And yes he was a great comedian, but how many catchers do you know of that were great behind the plate who also have a career 285 bating average with 358 home runs and 1430 RBI. At least statistically we're talking about a better hitting catcher than Johnny Bench who is still the best all around catcher of all-time. Yogi is at least the best all around catcher pre-Johnny Bench who came up with the Cincinnati Reds in 1967.

As far as his humor I love people who put things in a very direct way telling it exactly how it is and using humor with it. Especially when they're not making fun of someone, or some group of people. Who can say ironic things and stuff that they know can't be true, but do it so well and intentionally that you have to laugh at it. Like the Yogi line about baseball being 90% half mental. Well anyone with a basic understanding of mathematics knows that can't be true. But he was so clever about how he said that, that you had to laugh at that. Or saying obvious things, but doing it with perfect timing that again you have to laugh. "When you come to a fork in road, take it."

"You can observe a lot just by watching." Which of course sounds like Captain Obvious under attack and everyone must duck, or get hit in the head with useless information that they've known since they were born. But if you're not someone who tends to be very good about knowing your surroundings and tend to miss things that are right in front of you, that little piece of obvious information can help you. And tell you to pay attention so you don't miss what is going on right in front of you.

"It aint over till it's over." Good message for players who are down a lot in a game, but still have time to turn it around. And instead of thinking, "damn we suck! We're not only going to get blown out, but we might not bother to score!" You would have Yogi saying something like, "relax, I know its 6-0, but its only the 3rd inning. Besides I got a guy in there who can actually pitch now. So just relax and play the game right and we'll get back in it." Telling his players there's a reason why a World Series is seven games and games themselves are nine innings, because you don't win those things early on.

Yogi Berra, again one of the top 3-5 catchers of all-time, but similar to Billy Martin and Phil Rizzuto if he wasn't playing and managing baseball, he could have been a great comedian and talk show host as well. Because of his ability to put things exactly as they are with a little touch of great wit. Which is what great one-liners are. The ability to use common sense to make fun of life and even people in life. The ability to state the obvious without someone saying,"no shit Einstein! You got any other brand new discoveries you would like to share with us?" And because of that and I think especially the humor he's going to be missed for a long time.

C-SPAN: 'John Boehner Resigns as Speaker of the House'

Source:C-SPAN- U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner (Republican, Cincinnati, Ohio) announcing his retirement.

"Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) announces his resignation as Speaker of the House.  Watch the complete press conference here:C-SPAN." 

From C-SPAN 

I don’t buy the regular guy line bit at all. John Boehner started off coming from a working-class German-American family in Cincinnati, Ohio which is very common there. But went to college and worked his way through there and became a successful small businessman in Ohio before running and getting elected to the House of Representatives in 1990, which was a bad year for Republicans who lost seats in the House thanks to a recession and an unpopular President Bush, the country getting ready to go to war with Iraq. 

Go up to 1994, as House Republicans win the House for the first time in forty-two years, he becomes Chairman of the Republican Conference. The fourth ranking Republican in the House. Becomes Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee in 2001, House Majority Leader in 2006 replacing Tom Delay.

John Boehner has spent most of his time in Congress as a House Republican leader, or committee chairman and has been there since 1991. We’re not talking about Joe Jones construction worker from Cleveland (or Cincinnati) who works very hard everyday, so his kids can have a better life than their father and hopefully retire with a decent pension and Social Security. We’re talking about a man with a successful business career, who became Speaker of the House of Representatives in 2011 and has held that job ever since. 

So not only is Speaker Boehner not a regular guy, but I sure as hell don’t feel sorry for him. We’re talking about a man who was never popular in his own caucus. And forget about House Democrats who don’t have much of say in who leads the House, John Boehner who was always in danger of losing his speakership because of his Far-Right and yet he decided to stay on and work through it anyway.

Whatever you think of John Boehner and as a Liberal Democrat I have a laundry list of issues with him myself and not bothering to take up immigration reform in the last Congress even after the Senate passed their own bipartisan bill is just one example, he was really one of the last adults in the House Republican Conference. Someone who at least knew how to govern and do what was right at the end to prevent current House Republican man-made crisis’ from becoming even worst. 

I hope Mr. Boehner remains Speaker, at least until the government funding issues are resolved. Because if you look at his possible replacements when you get past House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, or a bunch of Tea Party radicals there that rather use the government funding debate to try to force their policies on everyone else than to govern. Which means in a divided government working with the other party. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

David Seaton: Ron Paul Interview (1988) Ron Paul's Libertarian Vision

Source: David Seaton- U.S. Representative Ron Paul R, Texas-
Source:David Seaton

Ron Paul, sounding less radical even as a Libertarian than I was expecting from him in 1988. He was talking about eliminating the income tax, which is something I would like to do, but then replacing it with a national sales tax, which is also something I want to do. Which is a top for another post. And he was also talking about sending more money and power back down to the states. Not eliminating public education, but making private education available to students. Very radical for lets say a Progressive, or Social Democrat on the left whose never in favor of eliminating, or even lowering taxes and not in favor of reducing the power of the Federal Government at least as it relates to the economy. But for a Libertarian not very radical.

Generally when you hear libertarian political candidates speak they say they're going to repeal at least two amendments from the Constitution, eliminate the income tax, the New Deal, Great Society, pull all Americans troops out of Europe and Japan on day one of getting into office. Even if they know enough about that government that doing even a few of those things are not very practical. Because of the opposition that would come from both Republicans and Democrats. But also the voters as well. But by the time Representative Paul ran for president in 1988 he was already in his sixth term in the House and had a pretty good idea about how Congress worked. So he wasn't proposing to repeal a bunch of constitutional amendments and that sort of thing, because he knows how difficult that is.

A&E Biography Raquel Welch

Source:The Daily Review

The photo shots and video footage of Raquel Welch are absolutely incredible. Rarely will you ever see a women that is this hot and adorable at the same time with incredible sex appeal as well. She’s truly a goddess and then you throw in the voice, the way she moves, the singer and that she’s a hell of an actress as well and we really are talking about not only one of the best looking entertainers of all-time, (arguably the best looking) but one of the best entertainers of all-time as well. A many ways both Raquel and Sophia Loren represent what Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield could have been if they just bothered to grow up personally and took care of themselves. Two incredibly attractive women who both had a lot of talents.

Hollywood at least at first probably just saw Raquel as a sex goddess. The 1960s and 1970s version of Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield and just wanted to use her for her looks and sell her that way. As far as her movies and the rest of her appearances. So they overplayed her sex appeal, but in the same time period she was given very good roles that also brought out her other talents. Her comedic side and the great voice as well. With the work she did for Vietnam servicemen and servicewomen. Movies like Fathom, Lady in Cement with Frank Sinatra, 100 Rifles with Burt Reynolds and Jim Brown and of course Myra Breckinridge, which I at least believe is one of the funniest movies of all-time. Where you got to see her great comedic timing in it.

I believe since Raquel has always had that hot baby-faced adorable face, the incredibly sweet sexy voice and high energy personality and that she’s known these things and again unlike Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield she’s lived very well and has taken care of herself and has been very responsible with her life by in large, (except for the marriages) she has aged so slowly and still remains a red-hot baby-faced adorable goddess in her mid-70s today. Who is still active in Hollywood and has other careers going for her in writing and in fashion. To me she’s a goddess in the best sense of the word. Both physically and professionally as far as her talent, intelligence and professionalism. And is one of the most impressive women I’ve ever known of.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Drew David: Lifetime's Intimate Portrait: Elizabeth Taylor

Liz Taylor is the Jim Brown, John Unitas, Babe Ruth, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Frank Sinatra, the person in her profession that everyone who comes after her his judged by. The greatest at what she does. Are you as good as Elizabeth Taylor as an actress? If you are, well now you’re the best, but if you’re anything close to her even light years from her you know you’ve made it. If you’re in her class, or just a few classes back from Liz Taylor you’ve made it. You’re not just a successful actress, but you’re a great actress. I’ve gone back and forth between Liz and Lauren Bacall when I try to decide who’s the best actress of all-time, because you could make a great case for either and I’m blogging now about Liz, so I’m going to make her case.

But I’ve just don’t know of another actress whose funnier, one of the funniest people who has ever come out of Hollywood. As she said she’s an instinctive and if you’re a great instinctive actress you are also a great improv actress, because you go off of feel about who you’re playing and where the role and the movie, or show is going. That is Liz Taylor and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Which isn’t a question, but a movie) Is a perfect example of that where she’s playing a women whose losing her mind and going crazy if not already there. Its is a very serious role and movie and yet she and Richard Burton are very funny in that. And maybe that’s just because they were working with each other and the chemistry they had. But they made that movie a great movie by themselves.

When it comes to dramatic actress’s I don’t know of a better actress. Again Virginia Woolf, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Butterfield 8, The V.I.P.’s again with Burton and The Sandpiper again with Burton. She’s great at making very serious roles in serious movies seem very entertaining and even funny. Virginia Woolf, is a very serious graphic even movie with this couple that looks like they’re getting ready to divorce, because of how they argue and the clean shots that they throw and land at each other. And of course with Liz’s character going insane as the movie moves along and yet they were both hysterically funny together in this movie. She might be the best improvisational actress of all-time as well and Lauren Bacall does very well in this area as well.

Liz Taylor very similar to Ava Gardner took charge of her life and lived her life exactly the way she wanted. And essentially said the hell with the future and the consequences and lived her life her way. I think that’s how a women is married 6-7 times, or whatever it was and drinks and eats too much. She lived a roller coaster life including all the tragedies that she suffered around her husband Mike Todd dying and other loved one around her dying. But with all the ups and downs that she had in her life she lived a great 79 years that has millions of people who love her and will always love her. And we’re also talking about one of the two best actress’s ever. And when you live a life-like that and enjoy so much and have so much success with so many people who love you, what do you have to complain about. She lived a great life and had a great roller coaster ride.

Patrick J. Buchanan: 'US & Catholicism In Crisis'

Source:Patrick J. Buchanan- talking about the Catholic Church.

"During the 1950s, the twin pillars of worldwide anti-communism were Dwight Eisenhower’s America and the Roman Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII.

During the 1980s, the last decade of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan and the Polish pope, John Paul II, were the pillars of resistance.

When Pope Francis arrives in Washington on Tuesday afternoon, the country he enters will be a very different one from Eisenhower’s America or Reagan’s America. And Catholics will be welcoming a new kind of pope.

In America 2015, homosexuality, abortion on demand and same-sex marriage — shameful crimes in Ike’s America, mortal sins in the catechism of Pius XII — have become constitutional rights.

These represent the values that define Barack Obama’s America, the values our officials defend at the United Nations, the values we preach to the world.

What Ike’s America saw as decadence, Obama’s America calls progress. And among its noisiest celebrants are our Catholic vice president, Joe Biden, and the Catholic leader of the Democratic Party in the House, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Since Eisenhower’s time, Christianity, the faith that created the West, has been purged from American public life. The Bible, prayer, and all Christian art, books and symbols have been expunged from the public schools as they were in Cuba when Fidel Castro took power.

Our cradle faith cannot be taught in our public schools.

America is a different country today, a secular and post-Christian nation on its way to becoming anti-Christian. Some feel like strangers in their own land. And from the standpoint of traditional Catholicism, American culture is an open sewer. A vast volume of the traffic on the Internet is pornography.

Ironically, as all this unfolds in what was once “God’s country,” Vladimir Putin seeks to re-establish Eastern Orthodox Christianity as the basis of morality and law in Russia. And one reads in The Wall Street Journal on Monday that Xi Jinping is trying to reintroduce his Chinese Communist comrades to the teachings of Confucianism.

The world is turned upside down. Every civilization seems to recognize the necessity of faith except for the West, which has lost its faith and is shrinking and dying for lack of it.

In a New York Times article this month — “Are Western Values Losing Their Sway?” — Steven Erlanger writes:

“In its rejection of Western liberal values of sexual equality and choice, conservative Russia finds common cause with many in Africa and with the religious teachings of Islam, the Vatican, fundamentalist Protestants and Orthodox Jews.”

Yet what Erlanger describes as “conservative Russia” does seem to share values with America, only it is the America of 1955, another country from the America of 2015.

Which raises a question: Does moral truth change?

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

But is this true? A decade after his beer hall putsch failed in Munich, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party won the largest number of Germans ever to vote in a democratic election.

He had succeeded in the marketplace of ideas. Did that democratic ratification make Hitler’s ideas true?

Or does truth exist independent of the marketplace?

Secular America, which has purged Christianity, preaches a new gospel to the world: liberal democracy as the salvation of mankind.

Yet did not Winston Churchill, icon of the democracy worshippers, tell us that “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”?

The Catholic Church, too, faces a growing crisis of moral consistency and credibility.

The church of Pius XII and John Paul II taught that the truths of the Ten Commandments brought down from Sinai and the truths of the Sermon on the Mount are eternal. Those popes also taught that a valid marriage is indissoluble, that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, that abortion is the killing of the innocent unborn, an abomination.

Yet one reads regularly of discussions inside the Vatican to alter what is infallible church teaching on these doctrines to make the church more appealing to those who have rejected them.

As the pope arrives in America, some Catholics are calling for an acceptance of contraception, the ordination of women and a new acceptance of homosexuality. Yet the Episcopalians, who have embraced all these “reforms” and more, appear to be going the way of James Fenimore Cooper’s Mohicans.

In Cuba, Pope Francis declined to address the repression of the Castro brothers. Will he also avoid America’s moral crisis to chatter on about income inequality and climate change and find common ground with Obama?

What has come out of the Vatican in the past two years is moral confusion. Yet as Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput reminds us, “confusion is of the devil.” It is also trifling with schism.

Having emerged victorious in the 70-year ideological struggle against one of the greatest enemies that mankind has ever known, Marxism-Leninism, are the United States and the Catholic Church heading for the same desuetude and disintegration?"  

"Before the 1992 New Hampshire primary, insurgent Republican candidate Pat Buchanan told "Face the Nation" why he was campaigning against his party's incumbent president."  

Source:Face The Nation- 1992 presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan.

From Face The Nation 

I’m not religious at all as an Agnostic. I don’t promote religion like a believer would, or put it down like a militant Atheist would. I’m completely neutral on the subject other than I believe in Freedom of Religion as well as Separation of Church and State. So asking me what is the state of Catholicism in America would be like asking the average mechanic what is the state of cancer research and expecting an expert opinion from that person on that subject. But I’m familiar with the 1950s even though I was born twenty-years later (give or take) and of course I’m familiar with today’s Modern America since I live in it.

Countries tend to progress and change. What might of seemed wrong or immoral to one generation of Americans back in the day may not seem wrong to people 20-40 years later (Let's say) Especially when you’re talking about activities that don’t actually involve hurting innocent people: 

Like what people watch on TV, consensual sex between adults even if they are from the same gender 

romantic couples deciding to live with each other and not getting married and perhaps even having kids 

women not just working, but having good responsible jobs where they even have men working under them 

gays living openly and no longer feeling the need hide their sexuality, and gay men not feeling the need to be viewed as masculine and gay women not feeling they should be feminine

So of course the America that Pope Francis is going to see this week will looking nothing like the America of the 1950s. But unless you’re a Anglo-Saxon-Protestant, Caucasian man, especially of wealth, why would you want to go back to the 1950s and have worry about be discriminated against simply because of your race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, where you were born even. 

America might have been a utopia for the Christian-Right especially the Anglo-Saxon, Southern Protestants. But not a very good place for just about everyone else. America has progressed a lot in the last sixty-years as most developed countries have. And progress is something that most people tend to be fans of anyway. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Mises Daily: William L. Anderson- 'Progressive-Era Economics and The Legacy of Jim Crow'

Source:Mises Institute- legacy of Jim Crow. 
"Mainstream historians and economists tend to see the period from about 1900 to 1920 as a glorious time for the Progressive agenda. In 1913 alone, the government headed by Progressive Woodrow Wilson created the Federal Reserve System, direct election of US Senators via voters (and not state legislators), and the federal income tax. The rise of regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission further directed the US economy away from “destructive” laissez-faire and toward a more “rational” model. Likewise, the US government at this time aggressively pursued anti-trust policies that sought to break up or prevent the creation of private monopolies, supposedly protecting the very heart of the American free enterprise system: competition." 

"In which John Green teaches you about the Progressive Era in the United States. In the late 19th and early 20th century in America, there was a sense that things could be improved upon. A sense that reforms should be enacted. A sense that progress should be made. As a result, we got the Progressive Era, which has very little to do with automobile insurance, but a little to do with automobiles. All this overlapped with the Gilded Age, and is a little confusing, but here we have it. Basically, people were trying to solve some of the social problems that came with the benefits of industrial capitalism. To oversimplify, there was a competition between the corporations' desire to keep wages low and workers' desire to have a decent life. Improving food safety, reducing child labor, and unions were all on the agenda in the Progressive Era. While progress was being made, and people were becoming more free, these gains were not equally distributed. Jim Crow laws were put in place in the south, and immigrant rights were restricted as well. So once again on Crash Course, things aren't so simple."  

Source:Crash Course- with a look at The Progressive Era.

From Crash Course

Libertarians like to point back to pre-1920s or the Nineteenth Century as the golden era for the American economy and perhaps the country as a whole. An era where the races in America were largely segregated by force. Where if you came from a wealthy Caucasian family, especially an Anglo-Saxon family chances were you would do pretty well in this country especially if you were male. But if you were a woman, you weren’t even allowed to vote yet. But if you didn’t have this economic, racial and ethnic background and you were something other than Anglo-Saxon and Protestant, good luck to you. There were even Europeans back then who were considered Un-American because they weren’t Protestant: the Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, Spanish and others and were discriminated against based on their ethnicity and religion.

And yet Libertarians point back to this era as the golden age for the American economy. Why, because it was before the regulatory state for the most part. Before we had anti-monopoly laws and child labor laws and other laws protecting workers from abusive employers. 

The New Deal, doesn’t come around to 1934, or so. During the Great Depression, not right before it. America hasn’t had that one golden economic age where the economy has worked for all the country. The 1990s and perhaps 1980s, 1960s and 1950s, where you saw people moving from poorer rural areas into the cities and found good jobs and were able to make a good life for themselves are really the closest thing we’ve had to that golden age for our American economy.

Pre-Progressive Era, might be the golden age for let's say economic Libertarians. Because they didn’t have an income tax, payroll taxes, child labor laws and other worker laws to protect workers while they are at work. That is if you were Caucasian, especially Anglo-Saxon, but how about the rest of the country especially if you were an African-American living in the South, or the North. How great was life for you in America in the early 1900s just 40-50 years after slavery was ended in this country. You probably weren’t very happy and doing very well. Because you were denied quality education, housing and employment simply because of your race and color. 

I’m not going to ask the question do Libertarians want to go back to that time, because I believe I know the answer. But how about the rest of you country especially if you’re not an Anglo-Saxon Caucasian Protestant man. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Brookings: William A. Galston & E.J. Dionne: The Case For Universal Voting

“William Galston and E.J. Dionne, Jr. make the case for universal voting – a new electoral system in which voting would be regarded as a required, civic duty. They argue that universal voting would enhance the legitimacy of our governing institutions, greatly increasing turnout and the diversity of the American voter base, and ease the intense partisan polarization that weakens our governing capacity.”

Before doctors try to fix their patients and fix what is physically wrong with them they first look their patients over to figure out the problem. They talk to their patients to where they are hurting and give them a full-examination. Well the lack of voting in America should be treated the same way. Instead of just saying out low voter turnout is a problem that must be fixed how about we first try to find out why people aren’t voting in the first place. Low voter participation in America is the perfect time for people especially politicians and partisan political activists to look in the mirror to see where they’re responsible here.

You want more voting in America then you need better politicians. And I’m not talking about people who get elected and reelected easier who’ll say they’ll do one thing during the campaign, but then govern a different way. But we need politicians that will simply go to Washington and do their jobs. Which is represent their districts and states. And instead of focusing most of their attention on the reelection or moving on to the Senate from the House, or looking at a presidential run they instead serve their people and establish a good record in Congress. And concentrate their reelection, or hopeful promotion based on their record in Congress. They do their jobs and reelection and promotion will take care of itself.

The only way you get better politicians is by having better voters. Which means the current people who vote every two years for Congress and four years for president need to do a better job of voting. Treat voting like a high school and college test and actually do your homework. Know who you’re voting for before you actually vote for that person. I know that sounds like commonsense, but a lot of American voters don’t bother to do that. And instead vote for people solely based on political commercials, soundbites and short campaign speeches. Without bothering to look to see if their current rhetoric matches up with their record in Congress, or before they ran for Congress.

As a proud Democrat it would be easy for me to be in favor of compulsory universal voting. With higher turnouts especially with young adults you would see more Democrats getting elected and reelected. Higher turnouts tend to favor Democrats, because there tends to be more registered Democrats than Republicans. One of the reasons why hyper-partisan Republicans support the so-called voter ID laws which are really Democratic voter prevention laws. Which at least one Federal judge saying that the proponents of these laws failed to show any real evidence of real voter fraud. Which is why the Pennsylvania voter id law was struck down.

But there are a couple problems with that argument. One of the practical and that is even if somehow you were to make voting mandatory in America, most non-voters or people who only vote during presidential years would still choose not to vote. And pay the twenty-dollar fine or whatever it would be. But then the other problem is why should Americans be punished for not voting for people they don’t believe in. A lot of Americans don’t vote because they don’t like the available choices. Which again goes to the need of needing better politicians and candidates. Which would drive up voting in America.

Monday, September 21, 2015

Green Party: Bill Kreml Envisioning a Functional Government

Source: Green Party USA-Bill Kreml-
Source:Green Party: Bill Kreml Envisioning a Functional Gov't- A Green Party Presidential Candidate

I gotta admit and there are not many Social Democrats, or Democratic Socialists that actually empress me, but Bill Kreml even with his hippie socialist look came off as very sober and knowing exactly what he's talking about here. We don't agree on social democracy, or democratic socialism, but he made an excellent presentation here.

I've said for about four years now as a blogger that Social Democrats in America, of course they want to change the U.S. Constitution. If not throw it out, or start over, or not bothering to replace it with anything else. And change the Federal Government and that is assuming they would leave our Federal system in place, change it to a social democratic majoritarian system. Where the people in power could essentially do whatever they want, because who, or what the hell would stop them? America is a Constitutional Federal Republic with liberal democratic values and protections that protect us from a majority that would go to far. Of course our Constitution is anti-majoritarian. Why should Americans lose their constitutional rights because of a big government party right or left that comes into power that doesn't believe in them?

The one suggestion that Mr. Kreml made that I actually like not sure if I'm in favor of it, but is certainly worth consideration would be to have the House of Representatives serve four-year terms instead of two. I would be open to this as long as you split up the House and 218 Representatives run during a presidential year and the other half run during mid-terms. So the people could still hold the President and his party accountable before the reelection campaign if they don't like what the current administration is doing and don't like what his party in Congress both House and Senate is doing either. But a better solution here would simply to hold Congress more accountable. End gerrymandering in the House whether it comes from Republicans or Democrats. And establish full-disclosure for all Senators and Representatives and Congressional candidates. So if someone is being bought the people will know who those people are.

Mr. Kreml hinted that a pure social democracy wouldn't work in America because of our size and political diversity. And neither would a unitarian government to replace our federal system. You take away the federal system and replace it with a unitarian system and you would see states leaving the union with Washington having to decide if they should use the military or not to prevent Florida. Texas, California, Alaska, whoever it might be from leaving the union. Because those states and perhaps every other state would say, "why should Washington tell us how to educate our kids, build our roads, get to spend most of our tax revenue, etc, etc, when we're more than capable of doing these things for ourselves?" But Mr. Kreml does make a good argument about the House of Representatives. Which of course needs to be reformed, but the question is how to do that.

U.S. History: The New Right

Source:U.S. History

The reason why I’m writing this piece is that I saw a video last week on YouTube. And it was about the New-Left in America and how they deal with free speech and their opposition to it and how they try to censor people they disagree with, or critical things about people they believe deserve special protection. And the guy made one particular good point about both the Christian-Right or New-Right and the New-Left. He said that the Christian-Right lost the Cultural War in America because they believed they could win that debate on the issues by making their case. Even though they operating in a country that doesn’t want big government in their personal lives and telling them how to live.
This guy’s point about the New-Left was also interesting and correct. He said that the New-Left and lets take free speech and their political correctness movement as an example, they don’t try to win the debate. They don’t even debate many times because they know government is not going or could constitutionally pull people from the air, or shut people up for simply saying things that they disagree with. So what they do with all of their petition’s and marches and trying to prevent people from speaking at functions and shouting them down from the audience is to try to privately censor people they disagree with. Bill Maher, hardly a rightist who has a lot of common with the New-Left on economic policy, is a perfect example of this from last fall and his comments about Islam.

The New-Right and New-Left even though they come from complete opposite fringes of the political spectrum, one being Far-Right and Far-Left, actually have a lot in common. They were both created about the same time late 1960s and early 1970s. They both believe they know what type of country America should be. With the New-Right we would essentially become a Christian Theocracy where their version of the Bible would replace the U.S. Constitution as our governing book and rule book. With the New-Left we would become a social democracy as it relates to economic policy. But more of a Marxist State when it comes to personal issues and free speech, or the lack of it would just be one example.

The New-Right was created to take on Hollywood, the Cultural Revolution, the 1960s, Women’s Liberation, Social Liberalism and they really came together in the early and mid 1970s with Roe V Wade become law of the land and making abortion legal in the United States. The New-Left was created to take on American capitalism, America’s involvement in the Cold war and trying to defeat communism and other authoritarian ideologies. As well to create more spaces for women to achieve and even take over in America and to force wealthy Americans especially Caucasian-Americans to give up their wealth to take care of the poor through government. Both movements are fascist. If you disagree with the New-Right you’re Un-American and immoral. If you disagree with the New-Left you’re selfish and a bigoted.

You can’t really cover the complete history of the New-Right and New-Left in one blog piece. You would need a book to do that, but what I’m doing here is giving you brief history of both movements and to show you that even though they both operate on complete sides of the American spectrum they actually both have a lot in common. They would both transform America into something that it completely isn’t outside of perhaps the Bible Belt, or New York City and San Francisco. Neither side believes in freedom for the most part, unless you’re living the way and believe in the things that they do. But both sides are both collectivist and see individualism and individual freedom as dangerous things and would like to eliminate them.

Sunday, September 20, 2015

Marmar: The Late Show With David Letterman: Dyan Cannon in 1991

Source:The Daily Review

Is it just me or did Dyan Cannon seem like she was on laughing gas, or something during this interview? Perhaps she just had a root canal and just came from the dentist or something. Maybe she went to a bad comedy show and took laughing gas there to be nice. So she would laugh at any bad joke that she heard. But that is what you get from Dyan. The adorable baby-face and personality that comes with where she’s always laughing and perhaps has even laughed at funerals before or something. (Now that’s cold) But she laughed at practically everything Dave said there. But this is why she’s great on shows like this, because talking to her is just like talking to a great comedian.

I was a fifteen year old high school freshman who was probably asleep when this interview was shown in 1991. I couldn’t tell you anything about the movie they were talking about even if I wanted to. Which I don’t because I simply don’t know what movie they’re talking about. But the idea that Dyan would have to sell which I’m sure was her beautiful Los Angeles home to make her own movie that only had a three-million-dollar budget, seems surprising to me. She was a Hollywood starlet for twenty-years at this point. Maybe she was going through another divorce where she owed her twenty-year old tennis assistant/beach bum ex-husband a lot of money in alimony, or something. But you would think a great successful Hollywood entertainer could easily finance a project like that.

Saturday, September 19, 2015

Drew David: Ava Gardner 1999 A&E Biography

Source:Drew David: Ava Gardner 1999 A&E Biography: A Country Girl Becomes a Hollywood Goddess

In Ava Gardner’s narration in this video you’ll see here where they use her actual voice Ava talks about that she was basically just a North Carolina country girl at heart. And how nice it would have been to just live in the country. I can’t think of a more modest thing a Hollywood star has ever said. I mean we are talking about one of the best looking women who has ever lived and one of the best actress’s who has ever lived. Perhaps the voice of her generation as well with that sweet and yet sexy voice. Perhaps she got that from hanging out with the Chairman of the Board Frank Sinatra and perhaps attending his board meetings. But imagine had all of that talent stayed in Asheville, North Carolina or some place. Only they would have known how great she was.

Even though Ava Gardner did live still 68 which is not a real short life, I mean you’re collecting Social Security and Medicare at that point, so you’re certainly not young in years, but the average America women lives to about 80 now, but I’m not sure she was built to last. She was a true star a Hollywood Goddess and stars tend to burn out at some point. And when you are a carefree individual that she was and live your life your way, (to paraphrase The Chairman) you’re going to do things that aren’t real smart if you’re looking to live a long time. She partied too much, drank too much, had a lot of bad relationships with the same man. (I think you know who I’m talking about) She got out of life as much as she could before it was taken from her, but made a hell of a life and career for herself.

Ava Gardner is literally one of the top actress’s of her generation if not all-time. The same league as Lauren Bacall, Susan Hayward and many others and perhaps not even a handful of actress’s are better. And yet she was a true star both on the screen and in real-life and lived her characters off stage as well with her lifestyle. She played the role of a women who couldn’t get enough out of life in her personal life and simply enjoyed life too much before it finally caught up with her. But in the time she had she put together a great resume including in the 1964 movie Seven Days in May where she played the girlfriend of the general was who trying to create a coup and take over the United States. And is still one of the top Hollywood Goddess’s and actress’s of all-time.

Omar Shabazz: Like It Is With Gil Noble- Interviewing Abdullah Abdur-Razzaq: 'On The Last Year of Malcolm X in 1997'

Source:Omar Shabazz- Abdullah Abdur-Razzaq, on Like It Is with Gil Noble. 
"Malcolm X & Abdullah Razaq: Like It Is With Gil Noble" Originally from Omar Shabazz, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube. 

The last year of Malcolm X was hell being under constant threat of death and having his own organization after him, plus Federal agencies like the FBI and perhaps others. And yet it was also a year when he got himself and education about people who didn’t look like him meaning Caucasians and perhaps others. He learned that not all Caucasians are racists and no longer viewed them as devils either. I don’t know who killed Malcolm X, but it is clear that people either in his own immediate group, or The Nation of Islam were involved in it. Perhaps Louis Farrakhan himself and perhaps parts of NYPD and maybe the FBI. Minister Malcolm had lots of enemies including people in his own life that wanted him dead.

Malcolm X had started moving away from the ideas that the races in America should be separated. That not all Caucasians are racists and evil, that not all the problems within the African-American community were about racism. And started preaching a different movement that was about self-empowerment for the African-American community and talking about education and economic development. And not preaching the message of blaming the so-called White man for all the problems of the African-American community. And people in The Nation of Islam hated Malcolm X for this and wanted him taken out for it. I would love to know who actually executed Malcolm, but I don’t believe we know that yet.

African-Americans get stereotyped as being big government welfare loving lovers who put all of their faith in the welfare state for their community. And unfortunately a lot of that is true thanks to the NAACP and the Black Caucus in Congress. But one of the reasons why the death of Malcolm X was such a huge loss not just for this community, but the American community as a whole is because Malcolm wasn’t about big government and welfare. His message was about education, self-empowerment and economic development for the African-American community. And there really hasn’t been another leader in this community that has had that type of message for African-Americans and Americans in general other than President Barack Obama. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960