Peyton Place (1957) Life is Not So Swell in Pleasantville

Posted on June 28, 2015 by Rik Schneider
Peyton Place

Source: Muir Maiden

Source:Muir Maiden

I don’t know any other movie that perfectly represents its time and is better timed and has a better plot than Peyton Place. I mean think about, think about what Peyton Place is about and when it comes out and when it takes place. In small town New England, where everyone looks the same, talks the same and acts the same, lives the same way. Or at least that is how it looks on the outside. Peyton Place, comes out in 1957, a time where mom stayed at home and dad worked. Where divorce, or single parenthood were considered sins. Where African-Americans, were considered servants of Caucasian families, especially Anglo-Saxon families. Where sex before marriage and even the talk of sex and how people being physically attracted to each other pre-marriage were considered sins.

Peyton Place and the 1940s, as well as 1950s America, perhaps especially in New England, are considered the Utopia of the Christian-Right and what I at least call the Traditional Values Coalition of America. And yet this is all just a façade. Peyton Place, is a movie where a single mother is raising her daughter. Her daughter’s father, dies early on, but she’s never actually married to him. Not only that, but this women played by the great Lana Turner, has an unplanned pregnancy with a married man. Again, adultery and especially adulterous sex, would be considered sins back then and in this community. And yet Constance MacKenzie, played by Lana, tries to come off as this better than now above it all person. Expressing the traditional values of Traditional America. Even though she’s lived a separate life where she expressed her true feelings.

Peyton Place, looks like a small town paradise in New England, on the outside. With good schools, good places to eat. Very friendly intelligent good people, things to do. And yet this is a town with a lot of the problems of a big American Northeastern or Midwestern city. Like Washington, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, to use as examples. Where women have kids with men who are married to other women and without marrying the father of their baby and where the father doesn’t have much of a presence in their baby’s life. Where a girl, played by Hope Lange, is raped by her stepfather, played by Arthur Kennedy. And when her stepfather attacks her again, she kills him and get charged with the murder of her stepfather. Because no one believes that she was simply defending herself.

Peyton Place, is also a movie, where a women played by Lana Turner, learns to open up, socialize and even love again. From the principle of her daughter’s high school, played by Lee Phillips. Who teaches her that there’s nothing wrong with two people openly showing their affection with each other in public. Even in Peyton Place. And is also a movie where abortion, again in a movie that came out in 1957, but took place even further back in 1941, thirty years before abortion even became legal in America, where a doctor, played by Lloyd Nolan, performs the abortion on Selena Cross, played by Hope Lange. Because she was a teenager, whose stepfather is the father of her baby.

To say that Peyton Place was ahead of its time as far as the issues that it talked about, would be like saying the Empire State Building in New York, is a big tall building. This movie was a solid ten-years ahead of its time. That showed that 1950s and 1940s America, wasn’t all that pleasant and certainly not perfect after all. That they dealt with the same issues back then as Modern America deals with today. Only they weren’t as public and the attitudes about these so-called alternative activities and lifestyles, were kept in the closet and hidden. Kept outside of mainstream America. And it is a very good look inside a time that wasn’t as innocent as its been advertised.

Posted in Classic Movies, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Quest TV: ‘Unsolved History: How Did Marilyn Monroe Really Die?’

Posted on June 28, 2015 by Erik Schneider
How Did Marilyn Monroe Really Die_ _ Unsolved History

Source:Quest TV– Hollywood Babydoll Marilyn Monroe.

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

“Was Marilyn Monroe’s death really a suicide, or something much more sinister?”

Marilyn Monroe

Source:The New Democrat– Hollywood Babydoll Marilyn Monroe, at Santa Monica Beach, California in 1962,

From Quest TV

I’ve seen several documentaries this month alone about Marilyn Monroe and her life. Because I’m very interested in her and was looking for new material that I could blog about Marilyn’s life. And in every show except for this one, they all suggested that Marilyn died from the wrong dosage of pills and then combined those pills with alcohol and you have the deadly combination which is what killed her.

The idea that Jack or Bobby Kennedy killed Marilyn, is stupid. Perhaps not as stupid as the idea that Vice President Lyndon Johnson ordered the hit of President Kennedy, but it’s still pretty stupid.

Marilyn Monroe, was certainly unhappy. You don’t drink and take as much medication as she did in the last few years of her life, if you’re mentally healthy. But suicide, especially considering everything else she had going for her, is a little hard to buy. She had a lot of people around her and if this was on her mind, someone would’ve probably picked up on that and hopefully would’ve done something about it.

Peter Lawford, who was sort of a personal consultant and assistant to President John F. Kennedy, if he’s involved in this, it would’ve come out. Simply because of his relationship with the Kennedy’s and Marilyn Monroe.

Marilyn Monroe, was drunk the night she died and yet felt the need to have more sleeping pills. And not that I know this from personal experience, but when you’re drunk especially lets say, shit-faced drunk, you’re pretty stupid, or at the very least you act very stupid and do a lot of stupid things. Simply because you’re not in control of yourself and do things that you wouldn’t normally do.

Some people say that drunkenness, makes honest people out of everyone. Marilyn, didn’t know what she was doing on the last night of her life. Because she was drunk and as a result, she took the wrong pill combination and then add all the drinking and that is what killed her.

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, Marilyn, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

C-SPAN: ‘President Obama Delivers Eulogy at Charleston Shooting Funeral of Clementa Pinckney’

Posted on June 26, 2015 by Derik Schneider

Attachment-1-523

Source:CSPAN– President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking at the eulogy in South Carolina.

“President Obama delivers a eulogy for state Senator Clementa Pinckney, who was one of nine victims in the June 17, 2015, shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Watch the complete funeral service here:CSPAN.”

Source: C-SPAN

I can’t imagine anything worst than being murdered in a house of worship. A place, that is supposed to be a house of peace. I mean, if you’re not safe in a church in America, where would you be safe? And yet this is where these members of the Charleston AME Church were murdered. And why, because of the so-called accused murderer Dylann Roof, hated African-American people?

The murderer’s hatred was so strong, his faith in people was so weak, that he murdered people in church simply because they were members of a different race and had a different complexion. These murders, we’re simply pure evil. Perhaps something that only an Adolf Hitler and his followers would approve of.

I believe that is what President Obama was hitting on here: yes, remembering Reverend Clementa Pinckney and the fact that he was murdered just perhaps because he was an African-American Reverend. But also acknowledging why everyone was there in the first place. Why they were eulogizing a man of 41 years.

When I think of how young Reverend Pinckney was when he was murdered and then add the fact that he was murdered in his church and for no other reasons than the color of his skin, it makes me really angry and wanting to see his murderer get similar treatment. But just not in a peaceful place like a church. But in some hell hole underground, where only Devils are welcomed and expected to attend.

South Carolina, I’m sure has its wonderful qualities and has aspects that make it a great place to live. And I believe Charleston is an example of that, but it has a level of hatred and bigotry that needs to be overcome. So it becomes that state where all Americans who are good productive people are welcome. And it doesn’t become a state where people aren’t even safe in church simply because of their race and complexion.

President Obama, didn’t speak to that and to South Carolina as a whole and I’m just adding this myself. But no American should have to even contemplate being murdered in a house of worship. Especially just because of their race and complexion. And gunned down in the prime of their life.

Posted in Barack Obama Presidency, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fox News: Franklin Graham: ‘Christians Should Prepare For Persecution After Gay Marriage Ruling’

Posted on June 26, 2015 by Rik Schneider

.

Well in the World of Stupid! I know, that’s a huge world in America, but in this part of the World of Stupid, Reverend Franklin Graham, who otherwise might be a swell guy and represents the so-called Southern charm and hospitality very well and is a good Christian man, saying that, “Christians should prepare for persecution after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage.” You don’t have to take my word for it. Fox News just showed what the good Reverend just said. And I know what you might be thinking. Fox News reports just as much news as The Onion, well maybe less. But here’s the video from Fox News showing what Reverend Graham just said. So you can see and hear for yourself.

As for Justice Anthony Kennedy’s ruling in this case. He ruled that his decision was based on the fundamental right to marry. And I would add America, that Americans 18, or over have the fundamental right to marry. It’s not government’s decision, or authority to decide who can get married in America. The fact that gay Americans are exactly that and adults, is all they need, as well as a partner that has agreed to marry them, in order to get married in America. It’s the class argument that I’ve made since I’ve blogged about this issue. That government can’t create two separate classes of Americans, with one being treated better, or worst under law than the other. And this case, the issue being marriage.

Same-sex marriage in America, along with the belief in civil liberties and privacy, as well as marijuana legalization and perhaps just after that prostitution, are just examples of where America is going. Personal freedom, is just as important to Americans as economic freedom. And our tradition of personal liberties and freedom, go hand in hand with our strong beliefs in economic freedom. Not wanting to be taxed very high and having so much power being centralized in one governmental authority. With that authority having so much responsibility for both our personal and economic well-being. And the Republican Party needs to figure this out, if they want to be competitive in the future.

Todd Starnes & Franklin Graham

Todd Starnes & Franklin Graham

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

On The Economy:Jared Bernstein: The Supreme Court and ObamaCare: Somehow Commonsense Prevailed

Posted on June 25, 2015 by Derik Schneider

SCOTUS
On The Economy

Jared Bernstein, progressive economist from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has a very good pice about the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act today. He talks about Chief Justice John Roberts and why he ruled in favor of Burwell, in King V Burwell. U.S. Secretary Sylvia Burwell, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Burwell, being the Obama Administration in King V Burwell. Bernstein, argues that Chief Justice John Roberts and the other Justices who ruled in favor, 6-3 decision by the way, ruled in favor of the ACA and the subsidies, based on Congressional intent.

Chief Justice Roberts, ruled that when Congress passed the ACA in 2010, it was based on three parts.

Better rules and regulations for how private health insurance is given in America. Including protections for patients, so they don’t lose their health insurance simply, because they actually need to use it. Or have a pre-existing condition. Just a couple of examples.

The individual mandate. So everyone is in the system and is covered and paying for their costs of their health care. And not passing their costs onto others. And making health insurance more expensive for everyone involved.

And the last one and perhaps the most important, because it goes to expanding health insurance and health care in America. The tax credits for lower middle-income working class Americans. People who aren’t technically poor and who are working, but can’t afford private health insurance and make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.

The Chief Justice, arguing that Congress didn’t intend to leave the tax credits up to the states that have a health care exchange, or have the Feds handle it. He said that under the ACA, the Feds can give out tax credits to people who don’t live in state with a health insurance exchange. Chief Justice Roberts, wasn’t saying he supports the law, but was simply ruling on the intent of the law and how it was written. And the ACA, clearly tries to expand health insurance in America. Which is what the tax credits are about and why the Feds fund them.

Posted in Barack Obama Presidency, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Reason Magazine: Shikha Dalmia: ‘SCOTUS Fuctus on ObamaCare”: Interpreting John Roberts’s King V Burwell Decision

Posted on June 25, 2015 by Ederik Schneider
Reason's Sense of Humor

Reason’s Sense of Humor

“So the Supreme Court ruled in favor of handing out subsidies through federal exchanges in King vs. Burwell, once

Obamcare
rtcosmin / Foter / CC BY-NC-SA
again letting the administration snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat.

What is interesting in a quick skimming of Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion is that he does not deny that the text of the law is thoroughly ambiguous. He also doesn’t deny that administrative agencies — aka the IRS in this case — shouldn’t have the final word in interpreting this ambiguity as per stare decisis considerations. Indeed, he goes out of his way to reject the 4th Circuit Court’s reliance on the Chevron test — the notion that in instances of textual ambiguity, courts must defer to the interpretation of administrative agencies in interpreting a statue — as binding in this case. Why? He notes:

When analyzing an agency’s interpretation of a statute, we often apply the two-step framework announced in Chevron…This approach “is premised on the theory that a statute’s ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps…In extraordinary cases, however, there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation…This is one of those cases. The tax credits are among the Act’s key reforms, involving billions of dollars in spending each year and affecting the price of health insurance for millions of people. Whether those credits are available on Federal Exchanges is thus a question of deep “economic and political significance” that is central to this statutory scheme; had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly.

So if the text is ambiguous and the court can’t defer to administrative agencies, then what should it do? A genuine opponent of judicial activism as conservative justices are supposed to be, would find a way to get Congress to clarify its intent – especially given that most of the legislators who actually wrote the damn thing are still in office. This would have required Roberts to rule in favor of the plaintiffs — which would have effectively invited Congress to clean up its own mess.”

From Reason Magazine

Anyone interested, or concern about the title of this piece, especially the first part. Apparently Shikha Dalmia, had a bad day over at Reason today and perhaps doesn’t control, or express her anger very well. For the life of me, I can’t understand what she has to be upset about. Ha, ha. Maybe she’ll smoke a joint, or something and calm her nerves.

I was just reading Chief Justice John Roberts decision. And he says the ACA has a provision where if states don’t set up their own health care exchanges for health insurance subsidies, the Federal Government will step in and provide people with those tax credits. That is the ballgame in this case. King, in King V Burwell, argued and perhaps not very well, considering they lost 6-3 and lost two Republican votes, that if a state, does not decide to set up a health care exchange, than the people in those states aren’t eligible for the tax credits.

So that’s King V Burwell. King, arguing that the states have to set up their own exchanges for the people in those states to be eligible for the tax credit. Burwell, arguing that the Federal Government can step in and makeup for a state not doing their own exchange. With the Chief Justice, a Republican and Republican appointee, who’ve I disagree with on many occasions, saying the ACA, already has a provision giving the Feds the ability to provide tax credits for health insurance. Even for people who live in states without health insurance exchanges.

Posted in Originals, Reason | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

James Pethokoukis: Supreme Court Upholds ObamaCare Subsidies: Where Do Republicans Go From Here?

Posted on June 25, 2015 by Rik Schneider

SCOTUS
AEI: Ideas: James Pethokoukis: Supreme Court Upholds ObamaCare Subsidies: Where do Republicans go From Here?

With the U.S. Supreme Court making the right decision in ruling in favor of the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act’s health care exchanges, (at least in my view), the Republican Party, at least in Congress will now have an opportunity to do something positive when it comes to health care reform in America. They know now that repealing the law either through Congress, or through the Supreme Court, is not happening at least in this Congress and while Barack Obama is still President. At least their leadership in the House and Senate knows that. Whether their Tea Party members in and outside of Congress understand that, or not, probably not likely. But their leaders know this.

Now, Congressional Republicans will have the opportunity, even though they’ve had it all along, to work with Congressional Democrats in both chambers, to improve a law that they know is here to stay. At least until there’s another Republican President and Congress. Waiting for that as more Americans benefit from the ACA and get health insurance and can now afford it, will make repeal even more difficult. Without costing them seats in Congress. But even Democrats have problems with the law, which gives Republicans an opportunity to work with them when it comes to the medical device tax and small business’s covering their employees. As well as add things to the law the Republicans at least use to like. Like expanding health savings accounts for moderate and low-income workers. And giving low-income workers a private option when it comes to Medicaid.

The fact is, Republicans both in the House and Senate, haven’t offered a plan, other than John Boehner’s substitute to the ACA, when he was still House Minority Leader back in 2009, which only covered seven-million people according to the Congressional Budget Office, because they don’t have a plan. They prefer the old system, but perhaps don’t want to admit it. They don’t have a problem with health insurers dropping patients simply because they need health insurance, get sick, or have a pre-existing condition. They simply call that capitalism and the free market. They don’t believe taxpayers should help cover the health insurance of people who make too much money for Medicaid, but can’t afford private health insurance. Which is what the ACA subsidies are about. Which is why I at least believe they still don’t have an alternative to the ACA and probably won’t offer one anytime soon.

Posted in AEI Video, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Associated Press: Mark Sherman- Explaining Supreme Court’s Health Care Ruling

Posted on June 25, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Mark Sherman
What I get from Mark Sherman, is that the challenge to the Affordable Care Act in King V Burwell, is that the challengers were saying that the subsidizes through the health care exchanges in the ACA are unconstitutional, because they are supposed to come through state exchanges. But as we all know at least the people who’ve been following the ACA, is that not every state has set up their own exchange. Republicans, control something like 30-50 governorships and maybe a couple of those states have their own exchange. And Democrats, have around 20 governorships, but not every Democratic state has a Democratically controlled governorship and legislature.

So if the challengers were right, the subsidies shouldn’t be available in states that don’t already have their own health care exchange. Even though the subsidies come from the Federal Government and are available on HealthCare.Gov. What Chief Justice John Roberts said, was that the purpose of the ACA is to expand health insurance in America. Not decrease it and that is what Congress intended in the law. Not to decrease health insurance. And to improve and expand the health insurance market in the country, not to ruin it and establish a Federally run health insurance system in the country. The Chief Justice, was ruling on the intent of the law.

Whatever you think of the ACA and I by in large support it, even though I would’ve gone further and added a public option and done more with preventive health care, the law is here to stay. For Republicans to get rid of the law, they’re going to have to win the White House back and retain control of Congress at the same time. And to do that, they’re going to have to win back young voters and Latinos. And the way they talk about immigration and these so-called voter ID laws, good luck to them on that. And hopefully Congressional Republicans will listen less to their Tea Party and Far-Right base and instead work with Congressional Democrats and President Obama. On ways to improve health care in America. Instead of trying to repeal a law that they don’t have the votes, or the President to support. But don’t go underwater hoping that will happen. Don’t hold your breath.

Posted in AP Video, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Andrew Klavan & Bill Whittle: Should Prostitution be Legal?

Posted on June 23, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

ProstituteSource:Bearing Arms Cam & Company– with a video about prostitution.

“Check out the entire Klavan & Whittle series, by becoming a member at PJTV:Pajamas TV But for now, don’t miss this episode– ‘should prostitution be legal?'”

From Bearing Arms Cam & Company

If I had to guess, it’s rare if ever that I agree with Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle on anything. If they said it was snowing in Chicago in January, I would ask for a second opinion. But as a Liberal (or Classical Liberal, meaning real Liberal, if you prefer) I don’t like the idea of government using our tax dollars to lock people up and incarcerate people, simply for what they do to themselves. If you want to go after and lock people up who beat up prostitutes, like their johns and pimps, that’s a good use of tax dollars.

Prostitution is a horrible business and I wouldn’t suggest it to my 100 worst enemies (not that I even have one enemy) but locking people up who represent no threat to a free society, is even worst. We would be much better off if prostitution was legalized, regulated, and taxed, instead of punishing people for simply hurting themselves.

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

Posted in Freedom of Choice, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

VOA News: Janet Weinstein- Activists: ‘Higher US Minimum Wage Still Not High Enough’

Posted on June 23, 2015 by Erik Schneider
38551

Source:VOA News– Rally, for a higher minimum wage in Washington 

Source:VOA News: Janet Weinstein- Activists: ‘Higher US Minimum Wage Still Not High Enough’

The so-called conservative economist in this piece, said something that is simply false and perhaps even insulting to minimum wage workers, that I have to correct, or I don’t think I would be doing my job. He said that if you force employers to pay minimum wage workers more than they are worth, that will cost jobs, because employers would find robots to replace those employees. Well, if you’re a cashier at a fast food restaurant, or retailer, or grocery store, you’re an essential employee. Why, because without those employees, those business’s couldn’t stay in business. No one has yet to invent a robot that can do the job of a fast food cashier, or cook. These restaurants have to have those employees in order to stay in business.

So this idea that these positions are only worth the bare minimum, or even less than that for people who believe the minimum wage shouldn’t even exist, is simply not true. Because without these employees, these business’s couldn’t operate and serve their customers. So given all this minimum wage workers are simply underpaid, because their employers have to have them in order to stay in business. And not only do these employers get away with underpaying their employees, but they are able to pass the cost of living of their employees, that don’t cover at all in many cases other than the minimum wage, onto hard-working middle class taxpayers. Who not only struggle to cover their own cost of living, but have to cover at least part of the cost of living of minimum wage workers. Because employers simply underpay and under benefit their essential workers.

One thing that I agree with Democratic Socialist Senator and Democratic Party presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on and I you’re familiar with my blogging, you know it’s not a long list, but he’s said that if the Federal minimum wage kept up with inflation from where it was in 1968, it would be over twelve bucks an hour right now. So-called Conservatives and Libertarians, like to say that the market should decide what people are worth. But the market doesn’t decide that, employers do. Employers are only part of the market. And the Federal Government shouldn’t decide what everyone is worth either.

But employers shouldn’t be able to pass their cost of doing business and their employees compensation on to the backs of hard-working middle class workers. That money should go from the employer to their employees. With a twelve dollar an hour minimum wage. Along with having employers pay their share in payroll taxes to cover public assistance programs. Instead of workers having to pay for all of that themselves.

Posted in War on Poverty | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment