A&E Biography: Ava Gardner

Posted on May 15, 2018 by Derik Schneider

A&E Biography_ Ava Gardner

Source:A&E– Hollywood Goddess Ava Gardner.

Source: The New Democrat

“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”

Ava Gardner Documentary (1)

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.

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

Posted on May 14, 2018 by Erik Schneider
21757

Source: Alfred Hitch Blog– Kim Novak, by The Golden Gate Bridge.

“(My analysis of Vertigo will be divided into two parts.)

In 1956 Paramount purchased two books as potential Alfred Hitchcock projects: Flamingo Feather, and D’entre Les Morts (From Among the Dead). He was planning to make Flamingo Feather first; it was announced in the trade papers as his next movie, and he went so far as to take a trip to South Africa, scouting locations for the movie. What he saw there discouraged him. He felt the movie would be costly, and the political subject matter touchy. So after returning to Hollywood, he scrapped this movie for From Among the Dead, the movie that would become Vertigo…

From the Alfred Hitchcock Blog 

“I need you to be Madeleine for a while”

Jimmy Stewart & Kim Novak

Source:The Monty Andrew– Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak.

From The Monty Andrew

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.

96465

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.

17714

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.

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

Posted in Classic Hitch, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Vanity Fair: Bryan Burrough: ‘The Miranda Obsession’

Posted on May 11, 2018 by kireschneider
48854

Source: Vanity Fair– Male friends of Miranda Grosvenor?

Source:The New Democrat

“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.”

From Carrie Hefferman

Christopher Walken & Natalie Wood

Source:Carrie Hefferman– Actor Chris Walken and actress Natalie Wood together, perhaps in 1981.

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.

27553

Source: The Advocate– Miranda Grosvenor

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.

Posted in Life, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

Posted on May 10, 2018 by Rik Schneider

8942

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

Source:The New Democrat

“Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Future of Conservatism.

Episode 016, Recorded on June 9, 1966 Guest: Barry M. (Barry Morris) Goldwater For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution 

Firing Line With William F_ Buckley_ Barry Goldwater- The Future of Conservatism (1966)

Source:The National Review– Firing Line With William F. Buckley and U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) in 1966.

From the Hoover Institution  

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley

Posted in Firing Line, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Vanity Fair: ‘Natalie Wood’s Fatal Voyage’

Posted on May 9, 2018 by Ederik Schneider
86735

Source: Vanity Fair– Robert Wagner & Natalie Wood

Source: The New Democrat 

“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?”

The Strange Drowning of Natalie Wood

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.

73277

Source: Yahoo– RJ & Nat

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.

68681

Source: CNN– Hollywood Baby Goddess Natalie Wood

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.

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, Natalie, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Republic: Win McCormack: ‘Are You Progressive’

Posted on May 7, 2018 by Erik Schneider
51062

Source: The New Republic– The Progressive Era

Source: The New Democrat

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.

81771

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.

Posted in The New Democrat, TNR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Politics & Prose: Timothy Snyder: ‘The Road To Unfreedom’

Posted on May 4, 2018 by kireschneider
513

Source: Politics and Prose– Author Timothy Snyder

Source:The New Democrat 

“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.”

From Politics & Prose

45283

Source: Writers Bloc Presents– Author Timothy Snyder

From Politics & 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.

Posted in Book TV, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dick Morris Reports: ‘How a Communist Almost Became President’

Posted on May 3, 2018 by Rik Schneider

Dick Morris Reports_ 'How a Communist Almost Became President'

Source:Dick Morris– reports?

Source: The New Democrat

“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,”

From Dick Morris

“How A Communist Almost Became President Of The US! Dick Morris TV: Lunch ALERT!”

From 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 Communists.

Posted in New Left, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

TIME Magazine: Aric Jenkins: ‘Natalie Death Ruled Suspicious: Here’s What To Know About The Actress’s Suspicious Drowning’

Posted on May 2, 2018 by Ederik Schneider
71957

Source: TIME Magazine– Hollywood Goddess Natalie Wood.

“More than 35 years after the mysterious death of Hollywood star Natalie Wood, the actor’s 1981 drowning has returned to headlines.

On Thursday, responding to interest generated by an upcoming 48 Hours report on the matter, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles sheriff confirmed that new witnesses who have come forward since the case was reopened in 2011 have provided investigators with a different story of what happened during Wood’s final hours. The witnesses’ accounts have prompted Los Angeles Country officials to deem the actor’s death “suspicious” and name her 87-year-old former husband Robert Wagner as a “person of interest.”

Source:TIME Magazine 

“Authorities believe Wagner was the last person to see Natalie Wood alive before she disappeared on Nov. 28, 1981. Peter Daut reports.”

Robert Wagner Now A Person Of Interest In Natalie Wood’s Death, Investig_

Source:CBS Los Angeles– don’t they make an attractive couple?

From CBS Los Angeles

Just before I get into what I believe happened in the death of Natalie Wood, I just want to share some of my personal thoughts about this true Hollywood Goddess, who was both great to look at, as well as one of the best actresses’s of her generation, if not ever. And certainly one of the cutest of not cutest actress’s ever. She’s in the same neighborhood as Liz Taylor and Lana Turner, when you’re talking about adorable women who’ve worked in Hollywood. Died at 43, but probably still looked like early 30s if not much younger than that. Cuter than Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, Diana Dors even, as well as being a beautiful and great actress. Damn shame she died so soon and died the way she did which was drowning which must have been terrifying and painful.

63909

Source: National Post– RJ & Nat

I saw the Investigation Discovery documentary about her a couple weeks ago and seen several other documentaries about her life and death and what they showed was that Natalie was hanging out with the real Christoper Walken ( not even a great impersonator of him ) as well as her husband Robert Wagner on their boat just off of Southern California. And Natalie and Chris, were working on a movie together Brainstorm and Natalie and Chris, were very friendly, perhaps even having an affair and she was married to RJ ( also known as Robert Wagner ) at the time and he wasn’t very happy about that. Wagner’s career was doing very well at that point with the hit TV series Hart To Hart, but Natalie was in a slump and Brainstorm was supposed to be part of her comeback.

24176

Source: Mid-Day– Nat & RJ

Both Natalie and RJ were drunk at this point that night on their boat. Natalie because she was having a great time with Chris Walken. RJ because he believed that his wife Natalie and Walken were too friendly and were jealous. And this is where it gets really interesting because Natalie wasn’t ashamed and dishonest about anything that was and might have been going on between her and Chris Walken and if anything was out front about that and they argued about that. RJ got somewhat violent but not actually hurting anyone on that boat and Natalie got fed up with that and went to their room on the boat to get away from her husband RJ and later went upstairs onto the deck of the boat. What we don’t know is what happened after this except that she fell into the water either accidentally or was possibly pushed into the water, but with no one offering any evidence that someone else was involved in Natalie falling into the water.

I’m cool with conspiracy theories, ( up to a point ) just as long as you have some actual real evidence to support your theory and you don’t sound like you just landed on Planet Earth from another planet or you’re a mental patient who is off their meds, or even an escaped mental patient, or even worst you sound like you’re simply trying to make money off of your supposed theory and now there are enough dumb Americans that will believe you and you make a profit from your made up story either through writing a book or making a documentary about it. What we do know is that Natalie Wood couldn’t swim, was drunk, went up to the deck of the boat voluntarily and fell into the water and later drowned. We don’t know about anyone actually drowning her and involved in her death either intentionally or accidentally.

We need to stay as close to the facts as possible with cases like this, if we want to be taken seriously by intelligent, well-informed, honest people. Otherwise we’ll sound like mental patients, people from other planets, or money hungry conspiracy theorists.

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, Natalie, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Andy Hailey: ‘How We Got Into The DJT Political Swamp: It Has Little To Do With Russia’

Posted on April 27, 2018 by kireschneider
72910

Source: Wall Stats– Yep, that pretty much sums it up

“In 1970, income and wealth inequality were at historical lows. The income tax tables had over 25 brackets with the top marginal rate of 74%. Campaign funding was limited to the presidential campaigns and lobbyists were few and far between.

After the Brown v Board of Education the development of ideas to resist federal laws was initiated. Read Democracy In Chains for details which also includes who funded this idea development like the Koch Brothers.

In 1971, Lewis Powell wrote a memo at the request of the president of the US Chamber of Commerce. This memo laid the foundation for corporate intrusion into our political process.

In 1970, for the second time in our national history, a law, called the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, was passed that changed the way Congress operated. This act is what enabled the massive growth in lobbyists, changed how our laws were written, and enable organizations like the NRA to keep laws desired by the majority from becoming law.

Listen to Congressional researcher James D’Angelo as he explains how the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 opened up politicians voting records and has helped special interests and corporations put profit before people:

Source:The Wawg Blog

“There are 26 registered lobbyists for every elected representative on the hill, with experts suggesting the true amount is closer to 100,000.

Yet transparency laws that people believe help combat this system of pay-to-play politics have been weaponized against them to further cement corporate control.

Congressional researcher James D’Angelo argues how the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, which opened up politicians voting records–has only helped special interests and corporations.”

Empire Files_ How Lobbyists Weaponized TransparencySource:Tele Sur– Donald J. Trump at a NRA convention.

From Tele Sur

Andy Hailey seems to making the argument that Washington lobbyists became a problem, when our tax rates became lower. That since we’ve cut taxes both in 1981 under President Reagan and again in the 1990s multiple times under President Clinton and again under President Bush in the 2000s and President Obama in 2009, that is when lobbyists became a problem in Washington. And that after we made lobbying easier in Washington that is when lobbyists became a problem as well.

I have a different take. Economics Professor Classical Liberal Milton Friedman, who I didn’t agree with on everything mostly having to do with regulations of the economy where I tend to be in favor of them, if they’re commonsense and not intended to run private businesses, argued that the problem with money in Washington, has to do with power and money in Washington meaning the Federal Government. That the reasons why lobbyists lobby so much in Washington is the same reasons why bank robbers rob banks, because that’s where the money is. Since 1964 the Federal Government has only gotten bigger, with few exceptions in the 1990s. And since that time even if you want to go up to 1970 from 1964, we’ve also only seem more lobbyists in Washington.

My other take on this has to do with American voters themselves. One good definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. You continue to vote for the same people to serve in Congress and vote for members that are corrupt or if you prefer bought and expect their behavior to change, you’re acting insane. U.S. Representatives and Senators, are not lifetime appointments. They go up for reelection every 2 and 6 years which gives their constituents the opportunity every 2 or 6 years to evaluate them and decide if they’re doing a good job or not. Are they of strong character and have strong qualifications to serve in the House or Senate, or are they lazy, vote against their constituents interests, and are corrupt or bought by the people who write them checks and finance their political campaigns.

So if you want to better politicians in America, you have to have better voters. And voters who stop voting for politicians because they like the smartphone the person uses, or because the politician is up to date on pop culture references, catch phrases, and entertainment in general, but who can be bought for a 100 bucks to vote this way or that way. And instead vote for candidates and incumbents who will do the job that they’re elected to which is to represent their constituents especially the people who can’t afford too write big checks to political campaigns.

And to go back to the Milton Friedman argument. You want fewer lobbyists in Washington, a good way to do that is to get money out of the Federal Government and decentralize a lot if not all the social insurance programs and allow for the states and localities to run them, under basic Federal standards to make sure those programs for the people who truly need them are run the way they’re supposed to be. Stopping running budget deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars every year. And get the the country’s fiscal house in order.

A couple of things that Congress can do and the U.S. Supreme Court might do one of these things for Congress, since Congress probably won’t has to do with gerrymandering and full disclosure. Eliminate gerrymandering all together and you’ll make Congress at least in the House accountable. Because representatives will no longer be able to just run to a hyper-partisan faction in their district and instead will have to represent a district that is more balance politically and ideologically.

And the second one being which unfortunately qualifies for the good luck with that column, because it goes against current members of Congress own political interests , would be full disclosure off all political contributions in America, at least at the Federal level and force members and candidates, as well political action groups and lobbyists, to disclose how they’re funding their political campaigns. And let the voters decide if their politicians and candidates, are bought or not.

A lot of the so-called Washington swamp and lobbyists issue in Washington, goes to personal responsibility. Back to my definition of insanity about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, you keep voting for the same politicians and you’ll just get the same behavior and same policies. Which will probably be written by the lobbyists who make the biggest political contributions. But you vote for good qualified people instead and help them get elected and get them elected and you’ll get different policies that are designed to represent their constituents instead. And Congress if they decided to go against their current political interests, could be helpful here as well by eliminating all gerrymandering and passing full disclosure off all political contributions. But fixing Washington and Congress starts with the voters themselves.

Posted in New Left, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment