Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Nadine Strossen- 'Fight Hate Speech With More Speech, Not Censorship'

Source:Reason Magazine- Author Nadine Strossen. 

“Reason’s Nick Gillespie talks to former president of the ACLU Nadine Strossen about the importance of free speech.”

From Reason Magazine 

"The updated paperback edition of HATE dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about "hate speech vs. free speech," showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech and democracy, equality, and societal harmony. As "hate speech" has no generally accepted definition, we hear many incorrect assumptions that it is either absolutely unprotected or absolutely protected from censorship. Rather, U.S. law allows government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm. Yet, government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. "Hate speech" censorship proponents stress the potential harms such speech might further: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. However, there has been little analysis of whether censorship effectively counters the feared injuries. Citing evidence from many

countries, this book shows that "hate speech" are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Therefore, prominent social justice advocates worldwide maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous "counterspeech" and activism." 

Source: NPR News- Good book!

From Amazon

To paraphrase USA Today political columnist and CNN political analyst Kirsten Powers, I'm a free speech nut. Meaning I don't put many limits on what free Americans can say about anything in America or anywhere else. Other than what Nadine Strossen said in this interview where she says you can't incite violence and call for harm against personal property and individuals. You can't falsely accuse someone without consequences. You can't harass someone and leave horrible messages on their phone without consequences, or get in their face after the individual made it clear to you that they don't want to talk to you and have already moved to get away from you. You're free to yell at that person as they move away from you, but you can't try to force anyone to listen to what you have to say about them or anyone else.
But when you live in a liberal democracy and you know what liberal democracy is actually about, you know you're going to be living in a country where some people there at least aren't very bright. Perhaps they flunked out of junior high, perhaps they're one beer short of a keg, got kicked out of every mental institution that tried to help them or simply simply escaped from every mental institution known to man. They're people out there that are simply stupid or crazy, or a combination of those things and view some humans as animals that deserved to be treated as such. Or that women should be slaves to men, at least Caucasian men. Or gays are really just mental patients, or perhaps don't even deserve to be alive. You're going to be sharing a free society with people who believe that only they the hateful nuts, deserve to live in freedom.

Americans simply have the right to make assholes out of themselves, except for the exceptions I've already laid out and when you live in a country of 320 million people you're going to have a lot of assholes. Especially when that country is a liberal democracy and broader free society. The way you combat hate speech is the same way you combat ignorance which is through education. You teach the ignorant or at least try to and explain why the asshole is an asshole and has views that could have only been dreamed up in the greatest pot fantasy in the history of the universe. And is so out-of-touch with reality that they live in a different universe mentally.

I'm in the camp that I'll fight to death every American's right to free speech even if I disagree with it and will fight to the death to preserve some asshole's right to free speech, because I don't want some other asshole ( especially elected assholes ) trying to shut me up either civilly or through government force when I say something that may tend to offend someone else. Once you pass laws that offensive speech is now illegal, you've just created a new highway of potential new offensive speech laws that now anyone could create or use to fight free speech that they disagree with. Which could include laws passed against racial and ethnic minorities when they say offensive things and do offensive things against majorities in America. Which is something the so-called political correctness warriors on the Far-Left haven't thought through or even considered which is political correctness laws could be used against them. Free speech and education, are always the answers to ignorance. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

The Economist: 'Liberalism- Where Did it Come From and Are its Days Numbered?'

Source:The Economist- Lady Liberty!

"Liberalism has been the dominant political philosophy in the West for more than 200 years. Populists say liberals are too elite and are out of touch with ordinary people. Here's what you need to know about liberalism and its place in modern society." 

From The Economist

On this overcast, ugly, cool Memorial Day in the nations capital just outside of Washington, I thought as we celebrate as a country the lives of the people who died for our freedom, I would explain how we got that freedom as a country and the philosophy that our freedom and individual rights is based on. Whether you want to call it classical liberalism or as I prefer just liberalism, liberalism is what our individual freedom and individual rights are actually based on. No other political philosophy has given us that. As well to speak to The Economist piece, do I believe liberalism is in trouble in America and around the world or not.

Source: Tedfri Teff- Great definition of Liberal and liberal democracy

Liberalism is based off of liberal democracy and the principles of what's called classical liberalism. Representative democracy where the people elect their leaders and politicians. But what also comes with liberal democracy is individual rights and things like separation of powers. A free press for example so government can't control both their own operations and enforcement, as well as the information that the people receive in the country. As well as free speech for individuals so people aren't arrested or detained simply for disagreeing with the government or anyone else. And that right to express themselves so long as they aren't falsely accusing, harassing people, or inciting violence. And that even covers offensive and hate speech. ( Sorry, political correctness warriors )

Source: My English Teacher- Good definition of Liberal

But not just a constitutional right to free speech which is a liberal right to free speech which covers a lot of ground, but individual rights, freedom, self-determination in general, that comes with limited government with again separation of powers, as well as the rule of law. People have the freedom over their own lives in a liberal democracy, but not the freedom to take someone else's freedom away from them, especially the right to life ( another liberal individual right ) unless it's in self defense. Our Founding Fathers ( our Founding Liberals ) didn't create America because they wanted to bring the British authoritarian monarchy here, but because they wanted to get away from it and create a liberal free society based off of self-determination, individual rights, and limited government.

Do I believe liberalism is in trouble in America and around the world? Yes, but because you have two competing authoritarian populist factions that don't believe in freedom and see it as dangerous. The Nationalists on the Far-Right, who don't believe in immigration, integration, multiculturalism, the rule of law, a free press, would like to see views that are critical of them be outlawed and the people who express those views be jailed. We see this with the Donald Trump movement in America, but also with Nigel Farage Nationalists in Britain.

And we see it with young people in America and in Europe on the Far-Left. Who have more respect for Karl Marx and Che Guevara and see Communists and Socialists as their pop culture icons as well as ideological heroes. And look down at people like Jack Kennedy, Tom Jefferson, and other Liberals who gave us our liberal democracy and freedom. They see Liberals as corrupt and bigoted, but Communists as great people who should be celebrated. it's not just the Bernie Sanders social democratic wing ( or Democratic Socialists ) that young people in America and in Europe are in love with ideologically and culturally, but authoritarians who are even further left of the Democratic Socialists in America and in Europe.

As long as you have these two growing political factions in America and in Europe, that see political diversity as a dangerous thing and that the other side aren't just political opponents, but enemies, with both major political parties in America expecting their political party to nominate someone from their fringe wing or they won't bother voting in the general election, liberalism and liberal democracy will be in danger in America. You'll always have a President who believes that anything critical of him should be punished and not allowed to get out in the public, especially if it's true. And an opposition party that believes they should not only defeat the party in power, but replace it with their own fringe and replace the Nationalists with Socialists and Communists, the people who believe in liberal democracy and freedom in general, will suffer. 

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

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

Notes on Liberty: Bruno Gonclaves Rosi: ‘Communism/Socialism is Rubbish'

Source: Slide Player- Communism & socialism-

Source:The New Democrat

Before someone argues that of course socialism works, just look at Britain, France, Scandinavia, and perhaps Europe in general, this is not about socialism at least in the democratic sense. This is about communism, which is different and is the authoritarian wing of socialism. Every social democratic or democratic socialist country in the world, has a capitalist economic system. Their capitalist system is just different than America’s and even Canada’s and even Germany’s. And socialism along with communism, aren’t just economic theories and systems, but political ideologies and governmental systems as well. So Europe with their social democratic/democratic socialist economies as well as forms of government, of course look different from America, which is a liberal democratic federal government, with governmental power is spread out and where individualism is rampant and encouraged.

Source: Brainy Quote- Soviet Union President Vladimir Lenin, on communism

People on the Far-Left everywhere and not just in America, argue that we don’t know if communism and socialism have failed or not, because they’re never in accurately put into practice. But we know that is simply not true. We know that social democracy/democratic socialism, have been put into practice and we know the results from that economic system and form of government. And we know that communism has been put into practice and the results of that economic system and form of government. How we know this? Because the people who advocate for communism are actually talking about Europe and other social democratic countries around the world like Japan, Australia, Canada. That wealth should be highly taxed and spread out. That no one should have to go without the basic necessities of life regardless of their education and production levels. That you should have a big centralized welfare state to provide people with the insurances that they need to live well. That is the economic system of Western Europe, Canada, and Australia, Japan as well.

Source: IZ Quotes- UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill, on socialism

What Communists do is make the same arguments that Democratic Socialists do, but take it further on both economics and expand their ideology to how government should operate and the role of state and and people in society. That the state should be put in charge of the people to serve the people on their behalf and meet everyone’s needs for them. That people sacrifice choice and freedom, for economic and physical security. And as long as everyone cooperates and doesn’t oppose the state, they would live in prosperity. That is always the promise of communism and the contract that Communists propose when they run for office. Whether they officially label themselves as Communists like in Cuba, or are dishonest with their ideologically and govern as closeted Communists, like what we see in Venezuela. Where the party in power there is actually called the Socialist Party, but they effectively at least govern as Cuban Communists. With a little more media, opposition, and freedom for the people.

Why Communism fails is because people, human beings in general tend to want freedom and be able to make their own decisions and self-determination. Wherever they live in the world, at least when they’re being honest. And that includes the social democratic/democratic socialist countries of Europe ( with the key word being democratic ) and when you take that freedom away and you take competition away, you also take away individualism and creativity, the incentive for people to improve and be productive, because they’ve been promised that whatever happens with them and however they perform in life at whatever they do, that big government no matter what will always be there to take care of them.

People all over the world tend to operate from fear. That if they don’t succeed and do well in life, bad things will happen to them that government won’t be able to bail them out and make it all better again for them. Which tends to be all the incentive that most people need to succeed and be productive in life. Because people tend not to want to live on Welfare and be able to do well in life so they don’t need Welfare to support themselves. In a communist system and I would argue at least even in a democratic socialist system, that fear is taken away. Because social welfare benefits from those countries at least in those developed countries, are so generous, that people know if they fail, they’ll always have big government there to bail them out. With our more liberal capitalist economic system, we don’t have that generous taxpayer funded insurance system to ball us out when we fall on hard times or even fail. Which gives us all the incentive in the world to succeed in life.

Seriously, if you don’t believe communism is a failure both as an economic and governmental system, spend some time in Cuba or North Korea. People don’t flea from countries that are doing well and are prosperous. And take long dangerous boat rides from Cuba to Florida, to escape the authoritarianism of Cuba and try to live in freedom of America. Americans don’t escape America to go live in Cuba or China, because they can’t handle personal decision-making anymore and want to go live on Welfare in Cuba, the Communist Republic of Korea, ( which is actually North Korea really is ) or China. During the height of the Cold War, about half of the world live under one authoritarian government or another, including Europe. Now most of the world especially in the West, no longer lives under communism or another form of authoritarianism.

Source: The School of Life: Karl Marx- Political Theory- Communist hero, Karl Marx

Jane Fonda: 1976 TV Interview

Source:Marmar- Hollywood Goddess Jane Fonda, in 1976.

“Jane Fonda interview – 1976.”

From Marmar

You can't sum Jane Fonda up as a Hollywood actress or a left-wing ( to be kind ) political activist. She's both of those things. She's one of the best actresses of her generation at least and I would put her in the top of her generation with women like Elizabeth Taylor, Natalie Wood, and many others. But she's also one of the most famous political activists ever and one of those people from the New-Left ( socialist movement of the late 60s and 1970s ) who actually survived that period and went on to have a very successful life. 

Not ending up in prison doing long stretches because she attempted to rob a bank and give all that money to poor people or blow up a bank.

Things that The Weather Underground and Students For a Democratic Society, the Symbionese Liberation Army, did. She managed to stay away political criminal activity and instead just use her free speech rights to express her own political views and campaign for people who think like her and want the same things in society. And whatever you think of her politics and I'm not a fan of her Far-Left socialist politics, I believe in free speech that free speech applies to everyone including to radical on the Far-Left and radicals on the Far-Right. One of my core beliefs as a Liberal.

That free speech isn't just for centrists who don't know what they believe, or Center-Right Conservatives or Center-Left Liberals. But when I think of Jane Fonda, I prefer to look at her as the great Hollywood actress that she's always been really since the late 1950s or early 1960s. And not as someone who has argued that America are the real murderers, the real evil empire. And that we're not just a racist, selfish society.  

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on WordPress. 

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

The New Yorker: Will Storr: 'How Millennials Became The Selfie Generation'

Source:The New Yorker- Narcissism on display.

"We look at how society became fascinated with its own image, and try to find the truth behind selfie-taking. How Millennials Became the Selfie Generation | Annals of Obsession"

Source:The New Yorker

Just on a personal I note: I'm really glad I went to and graduated high school in the early and mid 1990s and not today with the personality I have then and now. Going to high school today must feel like you're on a reality TV or daytime talk show or something. With practically every teenager in school feeling the need to talk, look, and act like they're favorite celebrity that they saw or read about online the previous night. Social media narcissism and faddism is in and individualism is dying with the Millennials and we'll see what Generation Z is like when they're out of high school and college as well.

Selfies similar to coffee house cups and smartphones, are props. People use them to tell everyone else that they're up to date and in style with whoever is cool or awesome at the time. And I'm willing to bet a lot of times when you see someone walking doing a street or out of a building looking down at their phone and holding a coffee house cup, the cup is probably empty and they're just looking at their phone. And that draw dropping OMG expression that you see, is just that. But there probably isn't actually anything extraordinary going on with that person at that time because again they're just looking at their phone because they want people to think they're just as cool or awesome and in as the people that see them.

Well, selfies are props as well for people who feel the need to be seen doing whatever they're doing that day and being at whatever the trendy place is and that place will probably be a coffee house or some trendy cafe and they'll feel the need to get those pics up on Facebook ( or whatever they're favorite social network is ) almost as soon as their pics are taken. The need to feel cool by the people they believe are cool and who they want to be seen with. Faddism is in with young adults today and the need to be seen like their favorite celebrities and individualism and risk in life is out. Because if people act like themselves the person they talk to in their head and see in the mirror when they're just being them self in private, they're worried that person might not be seen as cool with the in crowd.

I'm all in favor of self-esteem and people feeling good about themselves, as long as it's deserved. When someone fails at something whether it's in school or at work, the first reaction shouldn't be it will get get better. Doesn't mean it won't get better, but that shouldn't be the automatic first reaction. The first reaction should be a self-examination and be a question which is why did you fail. Failing and screwing up should be opportunities for self-improvement. "This is why I failed and this is what I can do to prevent future failures and be successful in the future." Instead of, "that is just a onetime thing and it will automatically get better in the future." Because if you don't fix what went wrong the last time, it won't get better until you do.

Self-esteem, the so-called self-esteem movement of the 1990s, was the start of the rise of narcissism in America. With people feeling the need to be seen and be seen being cool and hanging out with cool people and feeling like if something went wrong in their life it wasn't because of them and it wasn't a personal failure on their part. And we see that with selfies today with people feeling the need to be liked and popular and be told they're great, oh I'm sorry awesome and doing awesome things and being around awesome people and feeling the need to be associated with whatever the popular trend is. And the internet and social media today have just taken those issues in American culture to extreme levels, along with celebrity culture and how important that seems to be with so many Americans.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

Mariah Riley: '48 Hours Mystery-Vanity Fair Hollywood Scandal- Natalie Wood'

Source: Mariah Riley- Natalie Wood & Robert Wagner.

“48 Hours Mystery – Vanity Fair Hollywood Scandal – Natalie Wood”

Source:Mariah Riley

I don't see much of a mystery here and certainly no foul play, at least no evidence of any foul play. We know that Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood, had a fight about Christopher Walken on their boat the night that Natalie drowned, but then they separated and went to different rooms on the boat. And Natalie for some reason by herself goes up on deck on their boat. We also know that they were both drunk and that Natalie not only couldn't swim, but was scared of water and didn't want to be in it.

So that might pose the question what was she doing up there and did someone force her to go up there. The problem with that is that she was drunk. Not that I know this from personal experience having never been drunk in my life, but from what I've seen with intoxication is that people don't think as well when they're drunk, as when they're sober. When you're drunk you just lost some braincells and the consequence of that is that you're not as sharp and aware of what's going on around you and you also don't have complete control of your movements.

You do and say silly things and perhaps eve stupid things when you're drunk. Walking around on the deck of a boat on a cold November evening even in Catalina California and getting close to the freezing water, would qualify as stupid. Especially in the dark and being there all by yourself. Especially when you can't swim and are afraid of the water, at least when you're sober.

This wasn't suicide or murder, but a woman who accidentally killed herself. Similar to a driver losing control of their car and being the only person in their car and crashing the car and dying instantly with no one else being there during the crash. Which happens with drunk driving accidents. This to me looks like a self-drowning accident. Perhaps the deck of the boat was wet and she was too close to the edge. Maybe she saw something and reached over to try to pick it up and lost control and fell in the water. With the other passengers on the boat away from her and no aware of what's going on.

I'm going off the available evidence that has been made public about this case that is now over 36 years old in late 1981. If someone wants me to believe something else, show me some actual evidence. Not a conspiracy theory and arguing well this happen or that happen and Robert Wagner really didn't love his wife and was jealous and saw this way to get back at Natalie because of her affection for Chris Walken. Even if that were true that still doesn't put Wagner with Natalie when she died or right before she died. Instead all you have is a decent fictional mystery story. Perhaps a tabloid story but nothing with anyway real evidence to it.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

A&E Biography: Ava Gardner

Source:A&E Biography- Hollywood Goddess Ava Gardner.

"Gardner was born in Grabtown, North Carolina, on December 24, 1922. She was her parents' seventh child. When Gardner was 2 years old, she and her family were forced to leave their tobacco farm. Her father then worked as a sharecropper, while her mother ran a boardinghouse. The family always struggled financially, a situation that worsened when Gardner's father died when she was 16.

Gardner was studying to be a secretary when her photographer brother-in-law sent pictures of her to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. A striking beauty with dark hair and green eyes, Gardner's photos convinced the studio to give her a screen test. This led to her signing a seven-year, $50/week contract with MGM in 1941 when Gardner was 18 years old.

Ava Gardner signed a contract to be an actress with MGM in 1941, but it wasn't until her appearance in 1946's The Killers that she became a star. Gardner's off-screen life was often as dramatic as the roles she played, with marriages to Mickey Rooney, Artie Shaw and Frank Sinatra. Gardner died on January 25, 1990, at age 67, in London, England. 

Actress Ava Gardner was a sultry beauty famous for playing femme fatale roles, and for her marriages to Frank Sinatra, Artie Shaw and Mickey Rooney."  

From A&E Biography 

"Ava Gardner Documentary"  

Source:All Things- Hollywood Goddess Ava Gardner.

From All Things

The way I feel about Ava Gardner is similar to how I feel about Lauren Bacall. And I put both Ava and Lauren in the top class of both Hollywood actresses and Hollywood Goddesses of all-time and I’ll explain what I mean about Hollywood Goddess later.

There are actresses in Hollywood that become famous simply because they’re famous. They’ve overly sexual and perhaps overly attractive as well and seem to need to be to be successful in life. Who are known for their personality and doing wild things, for using catch phrases that become famous and popular. Who fit imperfectly with the current pop culture scene and how people are acting and communicating. But aren’t in Hollywood either on TV or in the movies because they’re great actresses and highly intelligent. They get seen because of their appearance and their personality and become popular for those reasons.

With agents, producers, directors, and executives, thinking we can make a stars of these women simply because they’re popular, even though they can’t remember their lines and struggle at just showing up for work. But directors in Hollywood thinking they’re worth the extra work and trouble, because of their popularity and makes shows and films that are passable as far as material and the work, but are known for the lead actresses appearance and personality. Not because of the work that was put into the production or professionalism of it. Lindsay Lohan comes to mind and you can probably name other actresses and actors light that yourself from every era.

And then there are Hollywood Goddesses, gorgeous women, who can be both little girl adorable and highly sexual but without overdoing it, but the most important thing once and if you can get pass their Goddess appearance is they’re great entertainers. They have great personalities, but they’re great actresses and entertainers as well. And they’re all very funny and interesting and are just women you want to hang out with and get to know, because you’ll never have a boring time with them. You can’t stop looking at them or wanting to talk to them. That is where both Lauren Bacall and Ava Gardner come in and fit into. Great looking women, but also great entertainers as well.

They’re prettier actresses than Ava Gardner. They’re even cuter actresses then Ava Gardner. (Short list there) And they’re sexier actresses then Ava Gardner. There might even be better actresses than Ava Gardner. Extremely short list on the last two points when you’re talking about a women with both great comedic timing and a great comedic wit in Ava Gardner, as well as great dramatic appeal and affect as well as Ava Gardner.

But similar to Sophia Loren, you’ll have a hell of a time finding an actress who is prettier, cuter, sexier, more entertaining, smarter, and more honest, and funnier than Ava Gardner. She wasn’t a total package, she was the total package, at least of her generation. Sophia Loren is better looking, sexier and prettier, but Ava, Lauren Bacall, and Rita Hayworth, are the Hollywood Goddesses of their generation. Incredibly stunning and adorable women, who are all great actresses. And it’s just a damn shame that we couldn’t get another 10-15 years of the great Ava Gardner. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

Alfred Hitch Blog: Wemisse- Vertigo (1958) ‘I Need You To Be Madeline For a While’

Source:Alfred Hitch Blog- Kim Novak, under the Golden Gate Bridge-

Source:The New Democrat

I saw North by Northwest for like the 200th time last night ( not that I’ve been counting ) because it’s my favorite movie and I hadn’t seen in about like an entire year and it has my favorite actor in Cary Grant, as well as my favorite director Alfred Hitchcock. I was just in the mood to see that movie again and watch Cary make a comedian of himself in every basic scene in the movie, with absolutely no direction from Hitch. The scene where he’s climbing out his hospital room and sneaking into another room from by going out his window into another window, is a perfect example of that. So I’m sort of in a Hitchcock mood, plus I love Kim Novak as well.

Source: Paste Magazine- Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak 

 Vertigo is not the perfect movie, but North by Northwest is, but Vertigo has a lot things in it that are perfect. Where the movie takes place and is shot which is San Francisco, which is at least arguably the best looking big city in America, if not the world. You couldn’t shoot a movie in a better looking big city than San Francisco. The director who I don’t need to mention. The two lead characters with Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak. Kim playing a woman who in many ways is a lot like herself. Sort of shy and lacking in self-confidence. Which is almost impossible to believe when you look at Kim Novak and then she’s also a very good if not great actress as well, because she’s so real and turns herself into the women she plays.

Source: WTOP Radio- Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak

To be familiar with ‘I want you to be Madeline for a while”, you have to be familiar with Vertigo itself. Which should go without saying, but it’s about a man who hires an old classmate of his who is a retired San Francisco police detective ( or inspector ) who is now in retirement completely and I guess living off of his pension, to essentially spy on his wife, because he believes she in some type of trouble. Or that’s what he tells Scottie ( played by Jimmy Stewart ) but really what this is about is Gavin Elster ( played by Tom Helmore ) playing Scottie for a fool and making him believe that Madeline ( played by Kim Novak ) is in love with him. And he falls in love with her and then she suddenly dies in the movie or that is what Gavin and Madeline want Scottie to believe. And he goes crazy and has a nervous breakdown and is not able to communicate at all and even does some time in a rest home to recover from his condition.

And then Madeline comes back, except that Madeline is now Judy Barton ( also played by Kim Novak ) and Scottie sees Judy who he believes strongly resembles Madeline at a store and Scottie is still in love with Madeline and decides he wants Judy to be Madeline and dress like Madeline and go to the same restaurants and places that Scottie and Madeline went to when they had their affair. Except that Judy is really Madeline Elster and she never actually died. She and her husband are just playing this scam on Scottie that he never figures out ( even though he’s a detective ) until the last scene in the movie. Where she actually does die for real.

If I had to do a scale for the best Hitchcock movies of all-time, Vertigo would be like number five. Alfred Hitchcock made a lot of films and made a lot of great films, but North by Northwest, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, Dial M For Murder, Family Plot, are all better so Vertigo wouldn’t even be in my top five, but again Hitch made a lot of great movies, so number 6 is actually pretty good. But it had a great cast, great director, the writing is a little cheesy with grown men and women using words like darn with no sense that any of these people are very religious at all and there in San Francisco and in the late 1950s when moderate swearing in Hollywood movies was becoming somewhat noticeable. But it has am iterating plot and Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak, are both very entertaining by themselves and Kim is hot, sexy, and adorable enough to get met to watch her in anything that she does.

Source: The Monty An Drew: Vertigo 1958- 'I Want You To Be Madeline For a While'- Jimmy Stewart & Kim Novak

Vanity Fair: Bryan Burrough: 'The Miranda Obsession'

Source:Vanity Fair- Male friends of Miranda Grosvenor?

“Paul Schrader took the first phone call at his hotel in New Orleans. It was 1981, and Schrader, who wrote the screenplay for Taxi Driver and went on to direct American Gigolo and other films, was in Louisiana to shoot Cat People, with Nastassja Kin-ski. The woman on the line introduced herself as Miranda Grosvenor, and before Schrader could get rid of her, she had somehow managed to keep him talking for 20 minutes, gossiping about Hollywood and a number of famous men she seemed to know all about.”

From Vanity Fair 

“Natalie Wood Investigation Vanity Fair.” 

Source:Carrie Heffernan - Christopher Walken  & Natalie Wood

From Carrie Hefferman

"Whitney Walton was hardly a household name when she died quietly recently while working at her job as a social worker in Baton Rouge, and she wanted it that way.

In the 1970s and ’80s under a different guise, though, she counted dozens of big-name Hollywood stars and standout entertainment figures as her phone pals."

Source:The Advocate- Miranda Grosvenor?

From The Advocate

The only people who know who Miranda Grosvenor actually is, would be whoever Miranda is in real-life, the people who know her and perhaps Bryan Burrough himself, assuming she's been honest and forthcoming with her. To the rest of the world she's just Miranda Grosvenor and had I not been watching YouTube on my TV ( which you can do if you have Verizon FIOS ) looking at videos there doing research for future blog posts, I would have have no idea who she is either, because I would've never had heard of her.

She's not a woman that even men who've had let's say phone relationships with her ( for lack of a better term ) how else do you describe people who only communicate through phone calls who never actually physically meet her, know who she really is and have I guess until Bryan Burrough did this story for Vanity Fair and Vanity Fair in conjunction did this documentary about the last days of actress Natalie Wood with a segment about this Miranda Grosvenor woman, no one else would know who she possibly is either, because she hasn't made it public who she is and the men she spoke to famous entertainment and in some cases political celebrities like Senator Ted Kennedy, haven't made there conversations public either. And have said they've spoken to this woman either.

I believe it was actor/comedian Buck Henry who said that probably every man wants to talk to a Miranda Grosvenor at some point. Someone who sounds sweet, sexy, intelligent, and interesting, with literally no strings attached. Married men could communicate this way with her because they're literally not cheating by doing this. All these guys were doing was sharing their personal thoughts and being entertained by a woman whose name they don't even know and have never even seen before even through photographs, let alone actually met. Where they're literally just free to be themselves and have nothing to lose, because they're probably never going to make these conversations public and Miranda or whoever she really is, doesn't want the conversations to be made public either.

I have some experience with online dating so I have some idea what these guys were going through talking to woman online and even over the phone, knowing they may never actually physically meet who they're talking to. I did have one advantage though which was I got to at least see photos of the women that I talked to. But I can see why guys would be intrigued by this especially if they're not married and currently single and perhaps looking for something different when it comes to romance and dating, perhaps coming off of a bad divorce or breakup. And perhaps thinking they might actually meet the woman they're talking to in person. Which is what at least one guy that she talked to wanted to do.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on WordPress.

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

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Barry Goldwater- The Future of Conservatism (1966)

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Mr. Conservative: U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, R, Arizona (Republican, Arizona) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1966.

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Future of Conservatism. Episode 016, Recorded on June 9, 1966. Guest: Barry M. (Barry Morris) Goldwater."

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Under Arizona law, Mr. Goldwater had had to give up his Senate seat to run for the Presidency, and so at the moment he was a private citizen-though still, even after his disastrous defeat, the acknowledged leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. This rich conversation ranges from the specific and immediate (Medicare, the prospects for the 1968 election) to the general (Has too much power accrued to the Presidency? How can it be curbed?). BG: "I think the country has become pretty much a two-term country. So I think it's pretty much up to the President. If he decides to run again, the chances of the Republicans beating him are not excellent. However, if he keeps on with his lack of success in Vietnam, the downfall of NATO, ... the growing cost of living in our country, the chances get better. But we don't like to win on those kinds of chances."  

Source:The National Review- Firing Line With William F. Buckley & Barry Goldwater in 1966. 

From the Hoover Institution

When you have a discussion with someone like Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater, who admittedly was the most conservative member of Congress, when he was in the Senate from 1953-65 and then later from 1969-87, you are talking about what some would call conservative libertarianism today or constitutional conservatism. Which is someone who bases their politics around the U.S. Constitution and conserving that document and all of the individual rights that come with the Constitution, including the protections that we get from government. And William F. Buckley was from that same branch on the Right in America, the Center-Right in the Republican Party. 

What Buckley and Goldwater were talking about here was how Conservatives could succeed not just in the Republican Party, but in American politics. And were talking about a movement where Republicans would run as Republicans, as Center-Right Conservative Republicans. Not as light-Democrats and as Progressive Republicans, but as Center-Right, Constitutional Conservative Republicans. And this political movement led to people like Ronald Reagan and other Conservatives in America getting elected in the future past 1966, as Conservative Republicans. Not as light-Democrats or Progressive Republicans.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

Vanity Fair: 'Natalie Wood's- Fatal Voyage'

Source:Vanity Fair- Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood.

“The 1981 drowning of Natalie Wood, while Splendour, the yacht belonging to her and her husband, Robert Wagner, was anchored off Catalina Island, remains one of Hollywood’s darkest mysteries. The star of Splendor in the Grass and Rebel Without a Cause, whose tempestuous search for love had led her finally to remarry Wagner, was terrified of deep water. How had she ended up in the Pacific in the middle of the night? Drawing on the police report—which includes interviews with Wagner, Christopher Waken (Wood’s then co-star), and others— as well as details from the yacht’s captain, SAM ASHER reveals the jealousy and rage of that deadly evening

I found my love in Avalon beside the bay, I left my love in Avalon and saild away. —From the song “Avalon,” made popular by A1 Jolson.”

From Vanity Fair 

“Watch the new and 7th season of BuzzFeed Unsolved: True Crime! Who killed this Hollywood star?”

Source:Buzz Feed- documentary about Hollywood Babydoll Natalie Wood.

From Buzz Feed 

I’m only going to make one reference between the death of Marilyn Monroe and Natalie Wood here, which is how they died. Marilyn at least from the best evidence I believe anyone has ever seen and at least has made public, killed herself but accidentally. She didn’t want to die that night in August of 1962 even if she was feeling depressed. But she drank too much and was overly medicated, because she had a history of depression and even mental unbalance.

Natalie didn’t want to die in November of 1981 either and had no history of mental illness or even depression. But she was drunk when she died, couldn’t swim, was on a boat, was way too close to the water, just had a major argument with her husband Robert Wagner, and probably slipped and fell into the cold water. Where again she’s drunk and couldn’t swim even when she was sober let alone drunk. 

Robert Wagner making a bad decision here thinking the only thing that happened was that she fell into the water and even though she’s drunk, he believed that she could get herself out of the water. And did this to teach her a lesson which is don’t get involved with other men including Christopher Walken. He was jealous of the guess friendship that Natalie had with Chris Walken. But there is no actual real evidence that RJ personally killed his little, adorable, little girl like even, beautiful wife Natalie Wood.

And if someone wants me to believe otherwise, show me some actual real evidence. At the very least show me a witness even a drunk one that Wagner pushed his wife into the water and watched her drown and did nothing to rescue her. Or got into the water and personally drowned her himself. You’re not going to be able to do that because Wagner wasn’t on the deck when she drowned in the water. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The New Republic: Win McCormack: 'Are You Progressive'

Source:The New Republic- Progressive Era.

"What distinguishes a progressive from a liberal? This is one of the more pervasive ambiguities in contemporary American political discourse."

From The New Republic

"LibertyCon unites the people who are redefining the pro-liberty movement. For more info, visit www.libertycon.com
Looking to bring some company? Invite your Facebook friends to LibertyCon. For more info, visit:Learn Liberty."

Source:Learn Liberty- talking about progressivism.

Before I offer you my own personal definition of progressive and progressivism and there really isn't any official of progressive and progressivism unlike liberal and liberalism, or conservative and conservatism, I want to lay out what progressive and progressivism isn't. Even if others believe their so-called progressive values are the real progressive values. And people who disagree with those values are regressive or right-wingers.

Source: The Slide Player- Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive Republican 

Progressives aren't Liberals and they're not Socialists either. Progressives and Liberals, share similar values, but Progressives also share similar values with Conservatives, which I'll explain later. You can be a Liberal and believe that people who are down should be able to get help from to help them sustain themselves in their time of need ( for lack of a better phrase ) and to help them get back up. And you can be a Progressive who believes in free speech, the right to privacy, personal freedom generally, but who isn't a Liberal more broadly.

And just as important, Progressives aren't Socialists ( democratic or communist ) and Socialists aren't Progressives. In many cases the opposite is very clear. One of the most if not most regressive ( anti-progressive ) political philosophies in the world is communism. ( For all you young hipsters who think Communists are cool and communism is cool and wear Che Guevara t-shirts ) When it comes to Democratic Socialists, similar to Liberals, Democratic Socialists share similar goals and in some cases values. The belief in a minimum wage, the right for workers to organize, health care for everyone, that poverty should be addressed, etc. But tend to differ in how to accomplish those goals and don't have a big centralized welfare state tax hike solution, to accomplishing all those goals.

Again, about what progressive isn't, you can be a man-hating, anti-Caucasian, Che Guevara and The Weather Underground loving, radical feminist Marxist-Socialist, or just a Socialist but not a Marxist with those other political characteristics. Who believes individualism and property rights are selfish and capitalism and private enterprise is racist, and personal freedom and free speech are dangerous, or you can be a Progressive. Who is forward looking and believes that progress can be obtained through government action, but isn't looking to destroy or takeover the American Federal form of government with checks and balances and replace it with a  socialist government. But you can't be a Progressive and a Socialist-Communist. They don't go together and tend to be at odds with each other. Progressives believe in progress through government action. Socialists and Communists, believe in collectivism, whether it's democratic or communist.

So what is progressive, what are Progressives and what is progressivism? I actually know the answers to these questions, otherwise writing this piece would be a waste of my time.

As I briefly hit on before in the last paragraph Progressives believe not only in progress, but that progress can be obtained through government action. Doesn't have to be the Federal Government necessarily, we live in a federal republic with a federalist form of government. Which means the states and localities have a role in addressing a lot of these domestic issues. Also doesn't mean that the Federal Government doesn't have any role in addressing issues and problems in the country. Again, Progressives are different from Socialists, but also different from Conservative-Libertarians.

One thing that I like and respect about progressivism is how non-ideological and pragmatic it is. Barack Obama should really be the modern spokesperson and father for what progressivism really is in America, because of how pragmatic he was as President.

Progressives like to solve problems in American society. They're not looking to nationalize this or that, or restrict this current freedom or take that one away and make the country more collectivist.

And this is true going back to the Progressive Era ( which actually was progressive ) to the New Deal of the 1930s, the Dwight Eisenhower Progressive Republican Administration of the 1950s, where President Eisenhower successfully addressed civil rights in America with school desegregation and gave us along with Congress our national infrastructure system. Or the Great Society of the 1960s, as well as smaller but important accomplishments of President Richard Nixon dealing with the environment, President Carter with energy independence, President George H.W. Bush with civil rights, President Clinton with family and medial leave, President Obama with health care. Which I believe is just as important as anything from the New Deal, if not more important.

The first word in progressive is progress and the second word is ive. Maybe someone will someday define ive for me, ( ha, ha) but nowhere in the word do you see socialist, collectivist, communist, feminist, or even liberal. Our most Progressive President's have been our most anti-authoritarian and anti-communist President's. Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Barack Obama even with his major campaign against Islamism and ISIS.

I mentioned earlier ( feels like yesterday at this point ) that I would show you something that Progressives and Conservatives have in common. ( Mission impossible to believe, right ) Well, I just did that with the President's that I just mentioned. The belief in that America has to be both strong at home as well as abroad. That liberal democracy is a great thing that needs to be defended and supported and that authoritarianism whatever the philosophy, needs to fought and defeated. As well as limited government and fiscal responsibility. Before President Bill Clinton, the last American President to have a balanced budget, was President Lyndon Johnson. something to think about when you're looking at political philosophy and labels.

There's been a lot of discussion the last few years, more like going back to the start of the Obama presidency, about what's the difference between Liberals and Progressives, or are they the same thing and what's the difference between Liberals and Socialists, or Socialists and Progressives, are they the same things. Senator Bernie Sanders, has been labeled as all three or that he's all three. Which is not true because he's a Democratic Socialist and a proud one at that.

When you think of Socialist, think of socialism democratic or communist depending on the person. When you think of Liberal, think of liberalism which is about liberal democracy. When you think of Progressive, think of progressivism through government action, but in a limited form. Not government trying to do everything for everybody and trying to run people's lives for them. Which if anything is actually regressive with all the individualism and freedom that people would lose as a result.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

Politics and Prose: Timothy Snyder- 'The Road To Unfreedom'

Source:Politics and Prose- Author Timothy Snyder, at Politics and Prose in Washington.

"Snyder’s follow-up to On Tyranny moves from showing how to resist authoritarianism to tracing the path of its recent resurgence. Starting with Putin’s consolidation of power in Russia, Snyder charts the rise of nationalists and oligarchs from Hungary and Poland to Britain and the U.S. Noting that the threat these movements pose to Western institutions aligns with Putin’s goals, Snyder advises us that they also reflect weaknesses and vulnerabilities within liberal democratic systems. As he urges us to act on the choice between individuality and totality, Snyder frames this moment of crisis as an opportunity to better understand and affirm the values and principles underlying our imperiled political order." 

Source: Writers Bloc Presents- Author Timothy Snyder 

From Politics and Prose

Timothy Snyder seems to be arguing that the reasons why voters in America and in Europe, have turned to nationalist-authoritarianism instead of liberal democracy, has to do with what's called inequality. That people who are voting for what's called strongmen or at least people with strongmen authoritarian leanings ( like Donald Trump ) is because they've seen their incomes decline while their taxes have gone up and then they see someone come in and essentially say that if you give them all of this power, they'll fix your problems for you.

Left-wing socialist and communist authoritarians, make these promises all the time. We saw that with Hugo Chavez and now Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela and we're now seeing that with Vladimir Putin in Russia and seeing it in Poland and Hungry today, and Donald Trump in America. Right-wing nationalist authoritarians coming into power and saying that if you give them all this power and don't question them, your lives will improve.

Which tells me that when people's lives seem so dark and without hope and they just can't seem to get ahead and their bills start piling, they become so desperate that they're willing to try anything to improve their lives. Including authoritarianism whether it's right-wing or left-wing authoritarianism.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

Dick Morris Reports: 'How a Communist Almost Became President'

Source:Dick Morris Reports- The National Enquirer's Chief Political Analyst Dick Morris-

“Click Here to give me your thoughts and continue the discussion.

Please forward this email to any friends or family who may be interested in viewing my video commentary!

Thanks for watching,”

Source: Dick Morris

You can see why Dick Morris is the chief political analyst for The National Enquirer. Hard to imagine how someone could be more qualified to be the chief political analyst for The Enquirer, as Dick Morris. Hard to imagine someone who is looser with the truth than Dick Morris and if anything views the truth as their enemy, than Dick Morris and The National Enquirer. To take Morris seriously about anything relating to politics and current affairs, you would have to be someone who uses The Onion as their main source for news and information.

Henry Wallace was no Communist. He was softer on the Cold War and fighting communism and other authoritarian regimes around the world than Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, but that could be said about a lot of people even on the Right who were Nationalists and believed that it wasn't America's business to fight communism and authoritarianism around the world and we should just worry about what goes on in America. Which is the same foreign policy viewpoint that President Donald Trump and his followers have. Whatever you think of President Trump and his followers, they're sure as hell no Communists, but right-wing Nationalists instead.

Henry Wallace was the George McGovern or Bernie Sanders of his time. Very democratic ( small d ) with his politics, but social democratic/democratic socialist with his politics. Big believer in big centralized big government and that it was the job of the national government to see to it that everyone's needs were met in society, but not someone looking to nationalize American industries and to wipeout private media especially opposition media that opposes the socialist administration. ( If we were to ever have Socialists running the government in America )

The only things that Dick Morris gets correct in his little video is that Henry Wallace worked for President Franklin Roosevelt. First as Secretary of Agriculture, later Secretary of Commerce, and later Vice President of the United States. As well as being the Progressive Party's nominee for President in 1948. And Morris is right that the Progressive Party were Far-Left and socialist even and perhaps even had some Communists in it and I would add not very progressive at all.

But Wallace was no Communist and to label Wallace a Communist, would mean that right-wing Nationalists, who were also soft when it came to communism and authoritarianism, because they believe it wasn't America's business to be involved in other countries as far as what form of government they have, were then and now also Communist. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.