Brookings Institution: Dana Goldman: Why Bernie Sander’s Plan For Universal Health Care Is Only Half Right

Posted on September 25, 2017 by Erik Schneider
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during an event to introduce the "Medicare for All Act of 2017

Source: Brookings Institution

Source:The New Democrat

Actually, I believe Dana Goldman is being generous here and giving Senator Bernie Sanders too much credit here. I don’t believe Senator Sanders is even half right and is selling his supporters a Mercedes for the cost of a Ford Escort and telling them that he’ll get back to them as far as how much the Mercedes really cost later on. Leaving his supporters with hopes of buying a Mercedes with only the budget of an Escort.

The problem with a Mercedes health care plan is that is cost as much as a Mercedes. If you’re looking at a Mercedes SEL or sports car, you’re talking about eighty thousand dollars or more. If you’re a young public school teacher just starting out, you might only be able to afford the Ford Escort economy car. Luxury cars are expensive for most Americans and so are great health care plans. Even Senator Sanders is now acknowledging that his so-called free universal Medicare For All health care plan is not free.

Why? Because it would be run by government. Who funds government? The taxpayers that consume its services. How do taxpayers pay for government services? Through taxation and that includes from their annual income, as well as payroll taxes that comes out of their paychecks. Whether you’re new public school teacher making 25-30 thousand dollars a year, driving a Ford Escort or another economy car. Or corporate lawyer or crooked politician making 500 hundred thousand dollars a year driving a Mercedes SEL or perhaps a Jaguar, or another great luxury car. The Sanders’s Medicare For All plan comes with deep costs and they have no idea to pay for it.

And you would be talking about a Medicare For All budget assuming you’re completely eliminating all private health insurance companies, as well as Medicaid, Tri-Care, the Federal civil service health insurance program, and all state health insurance programs, you would be talking about an annual Medicare budget of over three-trillion-dollars, to go on top of the already four-trillion-dollar U.S. Government budget. There’s no free health care for anyone who pays taxes. Which means the Medicare For All supporters would have to come up with the finances to pay for it.

And if that is not depressing enough I only covered the costs of a Medicare For All plan and the fact that their supporters don’t have a damn clue how to pay for it. Other than saying, “well, if we can borrow trillions of dollars to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we can do that to guarantee health care for everyone.” Which at best is a sophomoric answer. Which is like saying, “hey if Billy can skip cool and shoplift, how come I can’t and have to go to go to school everyday?.” Not exactly an example that you want to teach people.

But how about the other big problem dealing with completely eliminating competition in the health insurance system and completely putting the U.S. Government in charge of the health insurance for 320 million Americans. We’ve already seen the problem with the Veteran Affairs Administration when you put the one agency in charge of not just the health insurance for everyone, but their complete health care as well.

Which is military veterans not able to get needed health care because their hospitals are overcrowded or live hundreds of miles from the nearest VA hospital. Which is why Congress and the Obama Administration reformed the VA in 2014 and now veterans can get health care at private hospitals at least, leaving taxpayers to pick up the costs of their health care that these veterans have earned by serving their country.

The VA example is really the only example you need to know why government shouldn’t be in complete control of the health insurance for a country of 320 million people at least. Socialism is just not the answer here because government is no bureaucratic and moves so slowly with the executive not being able to reform themselves quickly and keep up with the times without the approval of Congress. And Congress which always has their eye on the next election and always keeping their eyes on their donors and making sure they’re pleasing them and only being able to move when it helps them politically.

The U.S. Government doesn’t respond to competition because it doesn’t have any in America. In theory they can do whatever they want and don’t even have to meet a budget. Private organizations obviously don’t have have that luxury and have to stay within their budgets and be able to adapt and deliver the best and most affordable services that they can. Or they’ll lose to the competition. Which is why you want competition in the health insurance market and you want to keep that market and if anything expand that market and give people other options to pay for their health insurance.

Like Medicare option and not just having Medicare for our oldest and unhealthiest Americans. That could be run by the states and not adding to the Federal budget. As well as health savings accounts including for low-income workers which would add even more competition to the health insurance market.

So, other than the costs of a Medicare For All plan other than their supporters seeming to believe that we can borrow three-trillion-dollars a years and put it on the national debt, which would actually be more expensive than what we borrowed for Afghanistan and Iraq, at least annually. Or than having rich people not only fund their own health care and health insurance, but forcing them to pay for everyone else’s even for people who can afford health insurance and health care and that the U.S. Government would be in complete control of everyone’s health insurance in a country of three-hundred and twenty-million people, without the money to pay for it other than deep borrowing and expecting wealthy people to cover the other costs and forgetting that rich people can simply escape taxes by moving their money to other countries, you might actually have to like the Sanders’s Medicare For All Plan. At least the idealistic romance novel side of it. Free health care for everyone. Who would be against that. But again, so such thing as a free lunch for people who buy that food. No such thing as free health care for people who consume that health care.

Attachment-1-1042

Source: TYT

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian, Jimmy Dore & Ron Placone- Bernie Sanders Medicare-For All Bill Explained

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

Real Time With Bill Maher: J Edgar Hoover, Chelsea Manning & PC Colleges

Posted on September 23, 2017 by FredSchneiderUS

Attachment-1-1039

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher– Bill Maher, Tim Gunn & Bret Stephens.

Source:The Daily Review

“Bill and his guests – Bret Stephens, Fran Lebowitz, Salman Rushdie, and Tim Gunn – answer viewer questions after the show.”

From Real Time With Bill Maher

As far as J Edgar Hoover, I don’t know how I can talk about him without being accused of being a homophobe by the Far-Left, or some liberal elitist to the Christian-Right, because they still can’t live with the fact that Edgar Hoover was gay and are still living in denial about it. So I might as well just jump into the discussion about talk about Edgar Hoover and his homosexuality.

To me, Hoover represents to what would be faux heroes in America and people who live with bipolar political personalities. In public, Hoover was a hard-core cultural warrior Nationalist who stood up for everything that the nationalist-tribalist-Right stood for in America. Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-Christianity, with this fundamentalist religious view of the world as far as who the real Americans are and tried to route out people that the Far-Right sees as the Un-Americans.

First it was Hoover, then it was Joe McCarthy, later Richard Nixon voters, followed by people would be identified as the Christian-Right in America by the late 1970s. Who are Far-Right religious voters who vote based on their religious beliefs and base their politics on their religious beliefs. Even if that interferes with a little sometimes annoying document called the U.S. Constitution. This is the political faction that Sarah Palin represents that voted for and overwhelmingly supports Donald Trump today. So this would be the public Edgar Hoover.

The private Hoover was the King of Queens. (Or is that the Queen of Queens) This openly, homosexual, man, who you would think was the President of the Castro District in San Francisco. Who not only crossdressed but who would treat his boyfriends like they were his girlfriends. And would be treated like a girlfriend by his boyfriends. Crossdressed, spoke with a high feminine voice in private. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that, to quote Jerry Seinfeld) The public Edgar Hoover was everything that the Far-Right loves. The private Hoover was someone who they believe represents almost everything they hate about America.

As far as Chelea Manning: If we can have openly sexist and homophobic speakers who talk about Latino immigration as the browning of America (to quote Ann Coulter) who speaks at universities on a regular basis, I don’t see why we can’t have a transgender ex-Marine who fought for their country in Chelsea Manning’s case speak at Harvard. Political correctness and fascism on campus and in America is put down a lot as it should and this blog has contributed to that.

But generally that comes from the Far-Left as far as people who hate anything that offends the Far-Left to the point they feel the need to not just shut up anything and anyone that offends them. But in some cases like with this so-called ANTIFA movement, they’ll physically attack people who offend them. Trying to shut up Chelsea Manning because she was convicted and served time in prison for releasing classified information and of course for being transgender, is political correctness and fascism from the Far-Right in America. The Sarah Palin/Donald Trump movement.

I just covered political correctness but I did it from the Far-Right. As the panel was saying college is not supposed to be a safe space, at least a safe space when it comes to ideas and politics. But a place to learn and grow, develop, hear things that you haven’t heard before even if they offend you.

If you want to be at a place where everyone looks, talks, and thinks like you, college is not the place for you. And instead perhaps just spend all of your time at coffee houses drinking lattes all day and learn about the world from your laptop and i-phone. Where people in their 30s might seem like old dinosaurs to you.

I was going to let that Fran Lebowitz comment go about the only real city in America in her view is New York and Chicago. But I don’t think I should, since Hillary Clinton is the news a lot recently and represents that elitist thinking that everything that is great in America is in New York. And the rest of of us are uneducated fools who don’t know how the real world works. That kind of thinking is why Hillary Clinton wrote a book about why she lost the 2016 presidential election. Instead of being too busy to write a book other than maybe her daily diary, because she has an administration to run as President of the United States.

Those blue-collar Democrats who voted for Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, voted for Barack Obama overwhelmingly in 2012 and 2008. Because Barack Obama even with his wine and cheese, yuppie Democrat personality, could connect to average Joe and Jane voters in America. And didn’t expect people to vote for him because of his last name and that he was a Democrat. Or they wanted to vote for the first African-American President of the United States. Hillary expected even blue-collar Democrats to vote for her, because she’s Hillary Clinton and she wanted to be the first female President of the United States.

Posted in Real Time, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Politics & Prose: Glenn Frankel: ‘High Noon: The Hollywood Blacklist & The Making of a Classic’

Posted on September 22, 2017 by kireschneider
Attachment-1-1033

Source: Politics and Prose

Source:The Daily Review

I don’t have much to offer about the movie High Noon, as least the original one from 1952. I did however see a movie with the same title from the Lifetime Network (of all places) in I believe 2009. But that is not what this piece is about. (Thank God!) Not a good movie and not trying to cure anyone’s insomnia by talking about the second High Noon movie. Not a good movie and not even very believable.

What I’m knowledgeable about and have read about and seen some documentaries about, is The Hollywood Blacklist from the 1940s and 1950s. Where workers out in the Hollywood industry who actually were Socialists and in some cases even Communists and even supported Communist Russia back then (known as the Soviet Union) but weren’t criminals and didn’t even have official relationships with the Soviet Government in Russia. They were simply on trial for their far-left political beliefs by crooked politicians in Congress who were simply trying to take advantage of the Red Scare and the start of the Cold War between America and Europe, against Russia and their allies in the East.

Hollywood professionals like writer Dalton Trumbo which there was a good movie made about him that came out in 2015 simply called Trumbo, were hauled in front of Congress at the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee simply because of their political beliefs. Not for any laws that they might have broken. But because they were Socialists and Communists who didn’t like the American liberal democratic form of government and instead wanted a socialist or communist state to replace our liberal democratic federal form of government.

The House Un-American Activities Committee, was exactly that which was Un-American. The idea that people could be hauled in front of Congress at first in the House and then later in the early 1950s to the Senate Investigation Committee chaired by Senator Joe McCarthy simply because of their politics and political beliefs and not for anything that they even may have done, is simply Un-American. So what if Dalton Trumbo was not just on the Far-Left in America, but was also a Communist! He was never going to have any political power in America, nor did he ever want any. And the Communist Party was never going to have any political power in America simply because they’re Communists and are illiberal. And oppose most of the liberal democratic values that most Americans love, like free speech and free elections, property rights, right to privacy, just to name a few.

Whether you’re a Communist on the furthest Left in American political or a Christian-Theocrat or Nationalistic-Tribalist on the furthest right in American politics, you have a right to believe what you believe. And express your beliefs in public and try to make the case for what you believe in public. Which is as American as our melting post and individualism. Which is what the so-called Red Scare of the 1940s and 1950s which is what this nationalistic anti-communist movement opposed and tried to eliminate from American life.

Politics and Prose: Glenn Frankel- High Noon: The Hollywood Blacklist & The Making of a Classic

Posted in Book TV, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Daniel J. Mitchell: ‘Disagreeing With Socialism, Despising Marxist Socialism’

Posted on September 21, 2017 by Rik Schneider

Attachment-1-1025

Source:AIM– Marxist Socialist Karl Marx and Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders.

“I wrote last week about evil of totalitarian ideologies such as communism and fascism and pointed out that both antifa and Nazis should be treated with complete disdain and ostracism.

And that led me to find common ground with my left-of-center friends, even though I don’t like many of their policies.

I don’t like redistribution…programs are financed with taxes and that the internal revenue code is enforced by coercion…if you catch me in a cranky mood, I’ll be like the stereotypical libertarian at Thanksgiving dinner and wax poetic about what’s wrong with the system. That being said, I much prefer the coercion found in western democracies compared to the totalitarian versions of coercion found in many other parts of the world. At least we have the rule of law, which limits (however imperfectly) capricious abuse by government officials. …our Constitution still protects many personal liberties, things that can’t be taken for granted in some places. Moreover, there is only a trivially small risk of getting abused by the state in western nations because you have unpopular views. And there’s little danger of persecution by government (at least nowadays) based on factors such as race and religion. This is what makes liberal democracy a good form of government (with “liberal” in this case being a reference to classical liberalism rather than the modern version). Unfortunately, there are some people in America that don’t believe in these principles.”

Source:Daniel J. Mitchcell

agree with Dan Mitchell about one thing in his piece on his blog that the point that I believe as well that John Judis argued in his column at The New Republic (now The Socialist Republic) is that what Judis called “liberal socialism” is really liberalism. (In his view) And that is what he and his political allies want. That Marxism and having complete national government control over everything in society, is at least a bridge too far.

So instead of Marxism and complete socialist control over society that we should instead have a liberal society (in their view) where personal freedom is still maintained (at least to some extent) and even have a private sector with private enterprise, but where the central government would gain control over basic personal and human services that people have to have to live well in life.

In this democratic socialist socialist state, things like education, health care, health insurance, pensions, child care, employment insurance, paid leave, etc, would be under government control. But leave in the private sector in charge of things that people need less and in charge of luxury items things that people need to enjoy life and to get around: transportation, travel, hotels, entertainment, restaurants, basic products that we buy at stores. Where you would want some private competition at least to see that these products are made as well as possible and to keep prices down.

One problem with the Judis argument about both liberalism and socialism and then trying to combine them both into ideology, is that one reason they don’t fit together, they don’t go together. Sort of like trying to fit a horse into a Ford Escort, or pairing a country girl up with a gangsta rapper and expecting them to hit it off. When they probably can barely understand what they other one is saying because they use such different slang and speak in very different dialects.

Socialism (democratic or not) is still a very collectivist ideology where the people are expected to trust the central government (in this case Uncle Sam) to manage their lives for them and to even see they are seeing the right doctors and going to the right hospitals and deciding where their kids go to school.

American liberalism is based off of liberal democracy where you have a federal republic with three layers of government and sometimes four if you live inside of a city that is part of a county. For example, people in Chicago live in Cook County as well, because Chicago is also part of Cook County, as well as the State of Illinois and of course the United States. But then you also have the individual themselves with the freedom to regulate themselves and be able to decide where they live, where their kids go to school, where they get their health care and who they pay to provide their health care for them. A more complicated way of saying health insurance.

You also get a good deal of personal freedom in a liberal democracy. Like how we spend our money, who we live with, who we are romantically involved with, what we eat, drink, and smoke. How we communicate with each other and how we express ourselves individually. A complicated way of saying free speech and expression. With a government at each level not to make our decisions for us, but to regulate how we interact with each other. Stopping and punishing predators when they attempt or abuse the innocent.

Liberal democracy unlike democratic socialism is so decentralized, because America was created through a revolutionary war, were soon to be American citizens who were living under a dictatorial monarchy from Britain wanted to break away from that and be able to live in freedom and make their own decisions for themselves. Which is something that so-called Progressives today (Socialists in actuality) simply don’t understand about America. And Americans when they argue that America should be like a centralized social democracy like Europe. Plus, that facts that they hate individualism and tend to view Americans as stupid and needing a big centralized government to babysit them. So their kids aren’t sent to the wrong school in their view. (To use as one example)

The last and perhaps not least reason and problem, with the John Judis argument of what he calls liberal socialism, is that everywhere else in the world what they call liberalism in America, is called socialism everywhere else in the democratic world, at least.

The democratic world views socialism as democratic socialism or social democracy, the less democratic or authoritarian world views socialism as socialism. Whether it’s practiced through democratic means like in Brazil, or through centralized authoritarian means like in Cuba and Venezuela.

Again so-called Progressives today (Socialists in actuality) are always arguing that America should be more like Europe. Well, they could start with words and calling their view or form of liberalism for what is actually is in the real world which is socialism. Democratic socialism, if you prefer.

Socialists argue that if government-run health care works in Britain, then it would also work in America. Well, if the words socialist and socialism are okay in Britain, then they shouldn’t they be okay in America as well? If you practice socialist ideology in Britain and believe in it and aren’t just called a Socialist but damn proud of that, then why wouldn’t Americans who believe in the same politics and policies, have a problem with the Socialist label in America?

Own up to your own politics and what they actually are and then make the case for them and why not only you support them, but why others should support them as well and you’ll gain credibility and power in America. When you try to hide your politics behind other labels is where you lose credibility and respect in American politics.

Posted in Dan Mitchell, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Atlantic: Olga Khazan: The Social Benefits of Swearing

Posted on September 20, 2017 by Ederik Schneider
Attachment-1-1018

Source: The Atlantic

Source:The Daily Review

I’m going to give you an answer to why Americans swear so much at least now in public but also in private as well that is a lot less scientific than what Olga Khazan gives you. But before that I’m just to go on the record and say I’m not a religious fundamentalist or very religious at all and don’t even practice any religion and I’m not a prude. Of course I swear like most Americans do I just have a real purpose to it and don’t feel the need to sound cool and lot of times today swearing is generally used simply to sound cool and hip. People will swear really for no other reasons other than that.

I swear to express anger and amazement and no other reasons. “Holy shit! That man is fat!” Would be an example of someone showing amazement and being caught off guard. “Why don’t you watch where the fuck you’re going, are you trying to fuckin kill me?” Would be an example of someone expressing anger because they think someone is moving too fast generally in a vehicle and moving recklessly. But most Americans swear today and cable TV especially HBO and company is a perfect example of that because that is simply their normal vehicle of communication. That is how they talk to their friends, that is how their friends talk and it seems perfectly normal to them. That is how cool people talk today.

If you want to sound cool today you swear a lot and even do it for no apparent reason. “Where the fuck is he? He was supposed to be here 2 minutes ago. Fuckin lazy ass!” Now was that really called for or could that person just so a little patience instead and say, “relax, he’ll be here.” Or not even say that and just enjoy that time waiting a few minutes. Maybe get a latte and stare at their iPhone and pretend to look hip and important for a few minutes.

The more you swear and sound cool doing it, the cooler you’ll be in American pop culture. And if you’re in entertainment the more you swear the more popular you’ll be and the more roles you’ll have in movies or on HBO or the other networks where hard-core swearing is not just allowed but encouraged. The bigger the asshole you are the more attention you’ll bring to yourself as the reality genre as proven the last fifteen years or so. You don’t have to do a scientific study to prove this but simply be aware of your own surroundings and what is going on in culture today.

The fact that we now see more cussing in American politics today whether its lets say moderate cussing with the use of the word damn and hell, screw, and other words like that not just on cable news, but network news where you would think the people there would be more moderate and cognitive with their approach to how they express themselves, is just an example of how pop culture hasn’t just infiltrated our political system, but that our political system is a reflection of our pop culture in America.

And saying what the heck, or darn it all, gee wiz, just sounds too 1950s Leave it to Beaver for most Americans today. Especially when you can say I don’t give a damn or what the hell, that is a helluva a lot, and not pay any price for it. You don’t need to poll people or do any scientific research on this and ask people why they swear regardless of their profession. You just have to be aware of what’s going on in front of you and see it for yourself.

Attachment-1-1017

Source: The Atlantic

The Atlantic: Opinion- Olga Khazan: Does Swearing Make You Likable?

Posted in The Atlantic, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bill Ayers: ‘Notes On Violence’

Posted on September 19, 2017 by Derik Schneider
Attachment-1-1010

Source: Democracy Now– New-Left group ANTIFA 

Source:Bill Ayers

If you look at leftist social-democratic and counter-cultural movements from the 1960s and today, you have three different movements on the Left in America.

The Martin L. King civil rights and then later People’s Campaign from the 1960s. That I believe is now represented by the Bernie Sanders/Jill Stein Democratic Socialists of America.

The Hippie counter culture movement who were by enlarge peace loving people who were taking on the establishment culturally and looking for a new way of life in America and didn’t feel the need to live the way their parents and grandparents lived. But weren’t looking to destroy the American system and force every American to live their way of life.

And then you have the radicals who feel it was their duty to not just to try to take on the establishment, but to tear down by any means necessary. (To quote Minister Malcolm X) But the New-Left radicals of the 1960s and their kids and grandkids from today have a different meaning of by any means necessary. Malcolm X was talking about taking on racists even though violent means, but only in self-defense and not go looking for violent confrontations. The New-Left radicals meaning of by any means necessary is not only use violence to confront violence, but use violence to obtain their political objectives. Which means for them taking on right-wing racists and other bigots and taking on our capitalist system and the people who control it. Corporate America and others.

Dr. Martin King was not just a Socialist, but also a pacifist. The Weather Underground and other New-Left radical groups of the 1960s and 1970s were not just Socialists, but in many cases were Communists. One of the reasons why they opposed the Vietnam War was because America was not just involved in another country’s civil war, but was fighting communism in Vietnam.

And today The Weather Underground has become was is called ANTIFA which is short for anti-fascists. People who oppose what’s called white supremacy. Groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis who want to America to separate and create a new Protestant European nation inside of America. And of course there are terrorists in this Far-Right movement who would murder non-European-Protestant Americans. Including Jews who racially are the same, but differ ethnically and religiously from English and German Protestants in America and Europe.

And ANTIFA sees it as their duty to not just take on these Far-Right fascist groups and protest against them and use their free speech rights to take them on, but to destroy them. Again by any means necessary. They call themselves antifascists, but they’re not, because they would use fascism to not just cut off, but destroy movements they disagree with like the Far-Right and others.

Democracy Now: ANTIFA- A Look At The Antifascist Movement

Posted in New Left, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Inside Edition: Bonnie Strauss- 1992 Feature on Jayne Mansfield

Posted on September 18, 2017 by Erik Schneider

Inside Edition_ Bonnie Strauss- 1992 Feature on Jayne MansfieldSource:Inside Edition– 1992 feature on Hollywood Babydoll Jayne Mansfield. This was the 25th anniversary of her tragic death in the summer of 1967. This is her daughter from her first marriage.

Source:The Daily Review 

“Movie star Jayne Mansfield (1933-1967) is profiled on “Inside Edition” in 1992, featuring film, TV and newsreel clips, as well as interviews with her first husband, Paul Mansfield, her daughter, Jayne Marie Mansfield, her mother (Vera Peers) and stepfather (Harry Peers), Hollywood journalist James Bacon, super-agent Irving “Swifty” Lazar and fellow sex symbol Mamie Van Doren.

Mansfield is best known for starring roles in THE GIRL CAN’T HELP IT, WILL SUCCESS SPOIL ROCK HUNTER?, KISS THEM FOR ME and PROMISES, PROMISES, and her untimely death in 1967. She had five children, including actress Mariska Hargitay.”

From Primativo

“The controversial actress Jayne Mansfield interviewed three weeks before her death in a car accident. Called the ‘Working man’s Monroe’ she is one of the original ‘blonde bombshells’

Yr actores Jayne Mansfield yn cael ei holi yn 1967, gwta tair wythnos cyn iddi gael ei lladd mewn damwain car. Mae hi’n parhau fel un o actoresau mwya rhywiol Hollywood…

Inside Edition_ Bonnie Strauss- 1992 Feature on Jayne Mansfield

Source:ITV– interviewing Hollywood Babydoll Jayne Mansfield in 1967.

From ITV

The man anchoring this show might look familiar to all you political and news junkies out there. Especially cable news junkies, because before Bill O’Reilly got his big gig The O’Reilly Factor at Fox News Channel in the mid 1990s, he was anchor of the syndicated tabloid/news magazine show Inside Edition.

I remember watching him on that show in the mid 1990s after work. But enough about The O’Reilly Factor, or as I prefer to call him The O’Reilly Finger and give him my middle finger to show how I feel about him.

Jayne Mansfield died in a horrible car crash in 1967 and she wasn’t drunk or even driving the car. The two men in front that were supposed to protect her were simply too tired to work and drive that night and should have never been on that trip. Especially with other people with them and in back of the car.

So that is why Inside Edition did this story about Jayne in 1992. Because even though she did make a brief impact in Hollywood in the mid 1950s, it was sort of like that talented QB who has a couple big years early in his career and perhaps even wins the Super Bowl, but gets hurt or thinks too much of himself and stops doing the work and finds himself even playing for bad teams, or completely out of the NFL. The fall ends up being as dramatic as the rise to the top floor in Hollywood. That was Jayne Mansfield’s short Hollywood adventure.

I disagree with James Bacon that Jayne wasn’t a good actress though and was only famous because of her, lets say measurements. She was a good actress, but more importantly a very good entertainer. Who was also a very good singer and comedian and had she realized that early on and just took with that instead of trying to move to doing drama and serious roles, we might be talking about one of the best comedic actresses and comedians at least of her generation. Which is how Carol Burnett and Mary Tyler Moore are remembered today.

Jayne wasn’t a great dramatic actresses, but great comedians don’t have to be. But Jayne got bored with comedy and tried to move away from what made her great in Hollywood.

Posted in Baby Jayne, Hollywood Goddess, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Turner Classic Movies: TCM Remembers Robert Osborne- 1932-2017

Posted on September 16, 2017 by FredSchneiderUS
Attachment-1-998

Source: TCM- Robert Osborne

Source:The Daily Review

How I do I talk about Robert Osborne, how do I talk about a man I don’t personally know who wasn’t an actor or a famous celebrity really for anyone who wasn’t an entertainer or an entertainment historian and writer who works with people like Osborne who was of course not just a film and Hollywood historian, but one of the best and most knowledgeable of his generation if not ever. Well, I guess I don’t have to say I can talk about as fan of TCM and Classic Hollywood in general, but that wouldn’t be giving me much credit. I’ll talk about Robert Osborne as someone who loves Classic Hollywood as a blogger who blogs about Classic Hollywood from time to time. And a big reason is because of knowledgeable people and historians like Robert Osborne.

Robert Osborne is not the reason why I love and many other Americans perhaps especially on Google+ that has so many Classic Hollywood communities and communities about old movies, famous entertainers and TV. But he’s one of the biggest reasons. Watching an old movie on TCM is not like watching an old movie on TNT or USA, to use as examples. Its so much better, because instead of one movie ending with the credits and that movie directly being followed by the next movie.

What you get is a backstory from someone like Robert Osborne or Ben Mankiewicz who gives you inside details about the movie you just saw. Where it was shot and why it was shot there. Background about the cast, writers and directors involved and what it took to get those people to work on that project. The chemistry that the cast had with each other, as well as the people they worked for on the project. As well as little information about the people on the project as far as how it affected their career before and after. And then you get a little taste about a documentary about about actors, actresses, and other entertainers short documentary films about Old Hollywood after the last movie had just been completed and before the next movie shows up.

Robert Osborne did not get me into Classic Hollywood, at least by himself. But like I said earlier because of him and TCM watching and old movie on TCM is not like watching an old movie everywhere else. Its more like reading a good book about a movie or good documentary about a movie and then thinking I have to see that movie because its so interesting. Except you get that information for free. Robert Osborne gave his viewers a good book or documentary worth of information about the movie that you’re about to watch in about three minutes. Because he was so knowledgeable about what you were about to see and doing it an interesting way.

Talking about the story without giving up the plot. Talking about the cast and again how they worked with each other and again how that film affected their careers and what they were doing before. I especially loved how Osborne talked about Hitchcock films and and saying how good Cary Grant was with Alfred Hitchcock because they had similar taste in movies, humor, and women. That is what you got with Robert Osborne. The story of the film before you saw it and yet still wanting and seeing that film, because of how interesting he made it sound. And he is one of the best if not the best and will be surely missed.

Turner Classic Movies: TCM Remembers Robert Osborne- 1932-2017

Posted in Life, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mark Lilla: ‘The Shipwrecked Mind’

Posted on September 15, 2017 by kireschneider

Mark Lilla, _The Shipwrecked Mind_ (2016) - Google SearchSource:Politics & Prose– Mark Lilla & Andrew Sullivan at Politics & Prose in Washington.

“Expanding on the essays he’s published in The New York Review of Books and The New Republic, Lilla’s seventh book is a rich history of political conservatism. Focusing on the often defining role of reactionaries, Lilla works through the legacy of Hegel and Heidegger as reflected in the thought of Franz Rosenzweig, Eric Voegelin, and Leo Strauss, then advances the theme to consider recent events, such as the January 2015 Paris attacks, tracing their effect on the reception of novels by Houellebecq, Zemmour, and others.

Lilla is in conversation with Andrew Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, and author of The Conservative Soul.”

From Politics & Prose

Why identity politics fails, at least in America? Well, because as much as the Far-Left (so-called Progressives today who are really Socialists) hates to admit this America is still a country of 320 million individuals. We’ve been this way a country of individuals even though our population has always grown since the Cultural Revolution of the late 1960s and 70s. When the 1940s and 1950s finally ended culturally and Americans led by the Baby Boom Generation decided that Americans should be able to be themselves. The freedom to be Americans and not forced either through government or culturally to conform with how Americans had lived up to that point in this country.

Identity politics goes against all of that and argues that there is only one way for Americans to live which is their way. Which is that there’s not rich and no poor and where economic equality is forced on everyone. And that people who strive to do better and be independent and make a good living on their own, are just being selfish and materialistic and serving the man. (As they would put it) And the so-called man to the New-Left (the Far-Left in America) is the white man (as they would put it. (Another way of saying the devil)

The fact is that non-Caucasian- Americans who are to the right of lets say Che Guevara, Saul Alinsky, Tom Hayden, and many others, who believe that the great thing about America is our diversity and the fact that everyone regardless of their race, ethnicity, or gender, can make it in America and be successful and our individualism and the fact that Americans have the freedom to be Americans (which is ourselves) and not be forced to be part of some group either culturally or politically, simply because of their race, ethnicity, or complexion, and have the freedom to be themselves and even be successful. They’re viewed by the New-Left in America as sellouts and even Uncle Toms. Sellouts to their race and culture, because they don’t view individualism and capitalism as immoral and racist.

Identity politics doesn’t work in America because to put it simply its Un-American. Trying to force a country this large, diverse, and individualistic, that is even becoming racially and color blinded (thanks to Generation X) everywhere outside of the Far-Left and Far-Right in America, where we as a country simply want the freedom to be ourselves and live our own lives. And do not feel the need to act, talk, and believe in a certain way simply to please another political group, or radicals in our own ethnic or racial group.

We’re becoming an America where Americans are seen exactly as that. Again, outside of the fringes on both sides and identity politics simply goes against that. And argues that Caucasian-Americans are simply overprivileged and by en-large, are bigots except for the people who went to either Ivy League or other great Northeastern or West Coast schools.

And because of that in their view that since Caucasians tend to be bigoted and overprivileged that non-Europeans-Americans are entitled to be treated better and deserve special protection under the law and even culturally, simply because they are specially protected groups as the New-Left would like them to be. And that simply goes against to what America and our great liberal democracy is and is supposed to be. Which is why identity politics fails in America.

You can also see this post on Blogger.

Posted in Book TV, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Alan Eichler: Good Morning America- David Hartman Interviewing Lana Turner (1983)

Posted on September 14, 2017 by Rik Schneider

Attachment-1-987

Source:Alan Eichler– Hollywood Babydoll Lana Turner, on ABC’s Good Morning America, in 1983.

Source:The Daily Review 

“Lana Turner chats with David Hartman in this rare TV interview from 1983.”

From Alan Eichler

This might sound harsh but I believe Lana Turner’s life represents a Hollywood character and actress who struggled to get out of character when she was off stage.

Actresses and actors when they make it in Hollywood and even become popular to the point where everyone interested in movies and TV knows who they are pick up an image. And believe they have to live up to that image to keep their popularity and stay hot in the business. Even if that image is not positive.

Like with Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield being known as blond bimbos and living up to that on and off camera. Even though in real life where actually pretty intelligent. Or James Dean being known as a teen rebel who is always taking on society and never quite settles down personally and is always fighting.

I believe in Lana Turner’s case she picked up the image as a soap actress character on some show where she has all the money any person could have and could have any man at anytime and ends up with every man and even marrying every man. Has kids with every man she gets involved with. (At least practically) Sounds like at least two female characters on General Hospital and if you’re familiar with the show and are a fan, you probably know who I’m talking about.

Lana Turner was perfect for soap operas because she was perfect for dramatic comedy. Both in her personal life as far as how she lived both intentionally and unintentionally, but she was also a great actress and a very funny woman as well. Which made her perfect for dramatic comedy which is what most good soap operas are like General Hospital, Dallas, Melrose Place, to use as examples, Days of Our Lives.

To me at least Lana Turner’s life was the story of a great soap opera. A lot of ups and downs, falls, and dramatic comebacks and she was one of the best soap actresses, as well as characters that we’ve ever had.

Posted in Baby Lana, Hollywood Goddess, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment