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.