Drew David: Lifetime’s Intimate Portrait: Dame Elizabeth Taylor, The Actress of All-Time

Posted on September 23, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Dame Elizabeth

Dame Elizabeth

Source: Drew David: Lifetime’s Intimate Portrait: Dame Elizabeth Taylor, The Actress of All-Time

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

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

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

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

Posted in Hollywood Goddess | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Patrick J. Buchanan: ‘US & Catholicism in Crisis’

Posted on September 23, 2015 by Rik Schneider
Pat Buchanan

Pat Buchanan

Source:The New Democrat 

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

Countries tend to progress and change. What might of seemed wrong or immoral to one generation of Americans back in the day may not seem wrong to people 20-40 years later lets say. Especially when you’re talking about activities that don’t actually involve hurting innocent people. Like what people watch on TV. Consensual sex between adults even if they are from the same gender. Romantic couples deciding to live with each other and not getting married and perhaps even having kids. Women not just working, but having good responsible jobs where they even have men working under them. Gays living openly and no longer feeling the need hide their sexuality. And gay men not feeling the need to be viewed as masculine and gay women not feeling they should be feminine.

So of course the America that Pope Francis is going to see this week will looking nothing like the America of the 1950s. But unless you’re a Anglo-Saxon Protestant Caucasian man especially of wealth, why would you want to go back to the 1950s and have worry about be discriminated against simply because of your race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, where you were born even. America might have been a utopia for the Christian-Right especially the Anglo-Saxon Southern Protestants. But not a very good place for just about everyone else. America has progressed a lot in the last sixty-years as most developed countries have. And progress is something that most people tend to be fans of anyway.

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

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

Posted on September 22, 2015 by Ederik Schneider
Jim Crow

Jim Crow

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

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

And yet Libertarians point back to this era as the golden age for the American economy. Why, because it was before the regulatory state for the most part. Before we had anti-monopoly laws and child labor laws and other laws protecting workers from abusive employers. The New Deal, doesn’t come around to 1934, or so. During the Great Depression, not right before it. America hasn’t had that one golden economic age where the economy has worked for all the country. The 1990s and perhaps 1980s, 1960s and 1950s, where you saw people moving from poorer rural areas into the cities and found good jobs and were able to make a good life for themselves are really the closest thing we’ve had to that golden age for our American economy.

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

Posted in Progressive | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

Posted on September 22, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Vote

Source:Brookings Institution– arguing in favor of forced universal voting.

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

Source:Brookings Institution

“The election over. Campaign memories already faded. Inauguration Day less than 3 weeks away.

But doubts rankle still about the way we vote. Could it be more efficient, more democratic? Could more of us participate? Could we ever get rid of the Electoral College … and should we want to?

Should we be considering weekend voting, universal early voting, e-voting, even compulsory voting? (which they have in more than 30 countries, including Belgium, Brazil and Australia!)

Those questions and more on our Due Process post-election show, featuring Sandra King in conversation with Marc Holzer, Dean of The Rutgers School of Public Affairs and Administration, and Thomas Gentile, a onetime campaign adviser to Rudy Giuliani and a spokesman for the Federalist Society. And if that’s not enough to make you to tune in to Due Process, watch us for some biting election satire from the documentary “Electoral Dysfunction” and political humorist Mo Rocca.”

Due Process - Voting in America_ Could We Do it Better_ (Aired 12_2_2012)

Source:Due Process TV– talking about American democracy.

From Due Process TV

Before doctors try to fix their patients and fix what is physically wrong with them, they first look their patients over to figure out the problem. They talk to their patients to see where they are hurting and give them a full-examination.

The lack of voting in America should be treated the same way doctors look at their ailing patients. Instead of just saying out low voter turnout is a problem that must be fixed how about we first try to find out why people aren’t voting in the first place. Low voter participation in America is the perfect time for people especially politicians and partisan political activists to look in the mirror to see where they’re responsible here.

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

The only way you get better politicians is by having better voters. Which means the current people who vote every two years for Congress and four years for president need to do a better job of voting. Treat voting like a high school and college test and actually do your homework. Know who you’re voting for before you actually vote for that person.

I know what I’m saying here sounds like commonsense, but a lot of American voters don’t bother to do that. And instead vote for people solely based on political commercials, soundbites and short campaign speeches. Without bothering to look to see if their current rhetoric matches up with their record in Congress, or before they ran for Congress.

As an Independent Democrat, it would be easy for me to be in favor of compulsory universal voting. With higher turnouts especially with young adults you would see more Democrats getting elected and reelected. Higher turnouts tend to favor Democrats, because there tends to be more registered Democrats than Republicans.

One of the reasons why hyper-partisan Republicans support the so-called voter ID laws (which are really Democratic voter prevention laws) because they know that there are more Democratic voters than Republican voters. And where there’s high turnout, Democrats tend to beat Republicans, including in swing districts and states and in some cases Republican leaning districts and states, where you have an unpopular, Far-Right Republican running for office.

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

Posted in American Politics, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Green Party: Bill Kreml Envisioning a Functional Government: Bringing Social Democracy to America?

Posted on September 21, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Un-American?

Un-American?

Source: Green Party: Bill Kreml Envisioning a Functional Government: Bringing Social Democracy to America?

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. History: The New Right

Posted on September 21, 2015 by Rik Schneider
New-Right

New-Right

Source:The New Democrat 

The reason why I’m writing this piece is that I saw a video last week on YouTube. And it was about the New-Left in America and how they deal with free speech and their opposition to it and how they try to censor people they disagree with, or critical things about people they believe deserve special protection. And the guy made one particular good point about both the Christian-Right or New-Right and the New-Left. He said that the Christian-Right lost the Cultural War in America because they believed they could win that debate on the issues by making their case. Even though they operating in a country that doesn’t want big government in their personal lives and telling them how to live.

New-Left

New-Left

This guy’s point about the New-Left was also interesting and correct. He said that the New-Left and lets take free speech and their political correctness movement as an example, they don’t try to win the debate. They don’t even debate many times because they know government is not going or could constitutionally pull people from the air, or shut people up for simply saying things that they disagree with. So what they do with all of their petition’s and marches and trying to prevent people from speaking at functions and shouting them down from the audience is to try to privately censor people they disagree with. Bill Maher, hardly a rightist who has a lot of common with the New-Left on economic policy, is a perfect example of this from last fall and his comments about Islam.

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

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

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

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

The Late Show With David Letterman: Dyan Cannon (1991)

Posted on September 20, 2015 by kireschneider
Hollywood Goddess

Source:Marmar– Hollywood Goddess and Babydoll Dyan Cannon, on The Late Show With David Letterman, in 1991.

Source:The Daily Review

“Dyan Cannon interview on David Letterman – 1991”

From Marmar

Is it just me or did Dyan Cannon seem like she was on laughing gas, or something during this interview? Perhaps she just had a root canal and just came from the dentist or something. Maybe she went to a bad comedy show and took laughing gas there to be nice. So she would laugh at any bad joke that she heard.

But that is what you get from Dyan. The adorable baby-face and personality that comes with where she’s always laughing and perhaps has even laughed at funerals before or something. (Now that’s cold) But she laughed at practically everything Dave said there. But this is why she’s great on shows like this, because talking to her is just like talking to a great comedian.

I was a fifteen year old high school freshman who was probably asleep when this interview was shown in 1991. I couldn’t tell you anything about the movie they were talking about even if I wanted to. Which I don’t because I simply don’t know what movie they’re talking about. But the idea that Dyan would have to sell which I’m sure was her beautiful Los Angeles home to make her own movie that only had a three-million-dollar budget, seems surprising to me.

Dyan was a Hollywood starlet for twenty-years at this point. Maybe she was going through another divorce where she owed her twenty-year old tennis assistant/beach bum ex-husband a lot of money in alimony, or something. But you would think a great successful Hollywood entertainer could easily finance a project like that.

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

Biography: Ava Gardner (1999)

Posted on September 19, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Brunette Goddess

Brunette Goddess

Source:The Daily Review

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on September 19, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

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

Source:Omar Shabazz– Abdullah Abdur-Razzaq, on Like It Is with Gil Noble.
Source:The New Democrat

“Malcolm X & Abdullah Razaq: Like It Is With Gil Noble” Originally from Omar Shabazz, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

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

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

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

Posted in Malcolm X, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Daniel JB Mitchell:Senator Robert J. Dole: ‘Castigates Anti-War Democrats on Vietnam: 3-27-1971’

Posted on September 19, 2015 by Rik Schneider

U.S. Senator Robert Dole Chairman of the RNC 1971-72

Source:Daniel J.B. Mitchell– U.S. Senator Robert J. Dole (Republican, Kansas) Chairman of the Republican National Committee (1971-73)

Source:The New Democrat 

“Republican Senator and Republican National Chairman Robert Dole castigated anti-war Democrats regarding the Vietnam War in this excerpt from a radio newscast. WOR, New York City, March 27, 1971. Dole was later the Republican candidate for President in 1996.”

From Daniel J.B. Mitchell

President Richard Nixon was very paranoid about the anti-war movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. He thought these New-Left protesters were not just being influenced by the Communist Party, but that Communists were running this movement. Even though his own White House couldn’t find any evidence linking the Communist Party directly with the anti-war movement. President Nixon’s own staff like Bud Krogh admitted as such.

Senator Robert Dole who of course is better known as Bob Dole, was Chairman of the Republican National Committee in 1971-72. What he was doing here assuming the WOR radio report is correct was expressing the views of the President of the United States about the anti-war movement in the country.

Bob Dole, was one of the most partisan people in Congress back then and almost had to be as Chairman of the RNC. And was also one of the most skillful politicians that has ever served in Congress. You almost have to be to lead your party in the Senate for eleven years both as Leader and then Minority Leader. And this is well before he even came President Gerry Ford’s vice presidential nominee in 1976 and before he became Chairman of the Finance Committee in 1981 after Senate Republicans won back the Senate in 1980.

By the time Dole is elected to the Senate in 1968 he moves up very quickly: Chairman of the RNC in 1971, reelected to the Senate in an awful Republican year in 1974, becomes Ranking Member of the Finance Committee in 1977 and just continues to climb in the Senate after that.

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