Tracy LDN: Margaret Thatcher- The Downing Street Years

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Rik Schneider
Attachment-1-1868

Source: Tracey LDN

Source: Tracey LDN: Margaret Thatcher- The Downing Street Years

Margaret Thatcher coming to power in Britain in 1979 is very similar to Ronald Reagan coming to power in America in 1981. Both countries economies were in very bad shape with high unemployment, inflation, interest rates. But in Britain’s case their economy was in worst shape with their taxes much higher, more people on public assistance and in poverty and a lot of their economy under control of the U.K. Government. Socialists had dominated Britain post-World War II with a few exceptions and that is the country that Maggie Thatcher inherited.

To understand Margaret Thatcher you have to understand the difference between a British Conservative and an American Conservative especially as it relates to economic policy. Thatcher didn’t run and want to end the British welfare state, but to reform it and create a society where not as many people would need it. Because more people would be working with good jobs and able to take care of themselves. And create a society with high economic and job growth with growing wages and more people paying into the welfare state and fewer taking out of it.

Maggie Thatcher wanted to create a Britain where people who could were expected to work and be able to take care of themselves. With the welfare state there just for the people who truly needed it. And for whatever reasons weren’t able to take care of themselves. And if you at Britain in 1990 when Prime Minister Thatcher left office and compare that with how the country was when she came into office in 1979, she was very successful. And also look at how she changed the Labour Party with Tony Blair. Changing them from less of a socialist party with the super welfare state and more of a new democratic liberal party that wanted to use government to empower people. Instead of trying to take care of everyone.

Posted in U.K. Tories | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Richard Quine: The Notorious Landlady (1962) Starring Kim Novak & Jack Lemmon

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Erik Schneider

_ (40)

Source:HD Retro Trailers– Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak starring in The Notorious Landlady.

“The original trailer in high definition of The Notorious Landlady directed by Richard Quine. Starring Kim Novak, Jack Lemmon, Fred Astaire and Lionel Jeffries.”

From HD Retro Trailers

The Daily Press_ The Notorious Landlady (1962) Starring Kim Novak & Jack Lemon

Source:The New Democrat– Kim Novak and Jack Lemmon.

Kim Novak similar to Diana Dors in The Unholy Wife is the perfect woman to play a murder suspect because she’s so cute and sweet. It is hard to believe she’s capable or hurting anyone let alone killing someone.

Only in The Notorious Landlady the Kim Novak character is innocent and what happened to her husband no one actually knows. The Diana Dors character in The Unholy Wife is guilty of murdering at least two people.

Jack Lemmon plays an American diplomat in London who has just arrived there needing a place to live while he’s in Britain. Kim Novak is also an American, but now living in England who owns an apartment house. It is basically a large house with a flat upstairs.

Bill Gridley (played by Jack Lemmon) finds the house and asks if he can rent the apartment there that is vacant. Not knowing that the woman who owns the house is a murder suspect. She is very protective of her and her home and very specific about who she wants living there. And try’s to scare off Bill with a phony English accent that Kim does very well in the movie, but is unsuccessful and eventually gives in.

Once they figure out that are both are American, they hit it off. Bill’s boss at the U.S. Embassy in London finds out where Bill is living and who owns the house and bring in Scotland Yard. Because they believe she murdered her husband.

Bill similar to me can’t believe that this woman that he’s now renting a flat from and is in love with is capable of murdering anyone. Even though Scotland Yard and his superiors believe she’s guilty and basically spends the rest of the movie trying to prove that she’s innocent. Even though he has his own suspicions about who is the real killer and is Mrs. Hardwick (played by Kim Novak) is completely innocent in this case.

This is not a great movie or a great comedy, but Kim Novak is great in it and looks great in it. And Jack Lemmon is his usual funny, charming self.

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

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

Charlie Rose: George Clooney (2005) Goodnight & Good Luck

Posted on February 14, 2015 by Derik Schneider

Attachment-1-1775

Source:Charlie Rose– actor/filmmaker George Clooney on Charlie Rose, in 2005.

“George Clooney talks to Charlie Rose about his new film, “Good Night, and Good Luck”, which he co-wrote and directed, also starring David Strathairn, Patricia Clarkson, Robert Downey, Jr. Then a conversation with yogi Sri B.K.S Iyengar.”

Source:Charlie Rose 

“George Clooney talks about making the film, “Good Night, and Good Luck” about journalist Edward R. Murrow trying to bring down Senator Joseph McCarthy.”

Charlie Rose_ George Clooney Interview (2005) - Google Search

Source:Charlie Rose– actor/filmmaker George Clooney on Charlie Rose in 2005.

From Charlie Rose

This is one reason why I’m definitely a big fan of George Clooney, besides his great sense of humor and charm, but his intelligence and knowledge about the issues that he likes to film about.

Ed Murrow and the Ed Murrow-Joe McCarthy battle in the 1950s over communism and fascism. George Clooney knows Ed Murrow so well and this story so well and you see that in this interview and in the movie. And you also see how much he respected Ed Murrow and how big of a thug and fascist that Senator Joe McCarthy was in the 1950s. Even if Ann Coulter is never smart enough to see that.

Ed Murrow knew how dangerous Senator McCarthy was in the 1950s and represented everything that America is supposed to be against and something I believe a large majority if not most Americans are against, which is fascism. And this blog covers fascism from both the Far-Right and Far-Left because it hates fascism. People telling others what it means to be an American and a moral person. Or how we should talk about certain groups of people and who we should communicate with each other.

Ed Murrow and his See it Now team knew exactly what they were up against and that the person that they were up against. And the fact that Senator McCarthy was a member of Congress and could use his power as a Senator to try to punish CBS News and the broader CBS network with their licensing and fines and everything else.

CBS News of course knew this as well which is why they weren’t fully behind Murrow and Fred Friendly. But it believed it was a fight worth taking on for the future of speech and other freedoms that Americans tend to take for granted. And they were very skillful how they took on McCarthy.

Posted in Originals, Political Cinema | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Reason: Hit & Run- Elizabeth Nolan Brown: Montana Bill Would Ban Some Tight Clothing

Posted on February 14, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

“Better ditch those codpieces and merkins, Montanans! Crazypants state Rep. David Moore (R-Missoula) is proposing a public ban on “any device, costume, or covering that gives the appearance of or simulates” the genitals, pubic hair, butt, breasts, or areolas. Under Moore’s new bill, appearing in such things would get you charged with indecent exposure and fined, jailed, or both. The bill would also ban all nipple exposure, even for men.

Moore said that the measure was in response to a group of cyclists who biked naked through the city of Missoula last summer, which was “not (his) cup of tea.” Under the legislation, tight-fitting beige clothing could be illegal. If you are not sure how one follows from the other, you are not alone.

Moore stopped short of trying to criminalize yoga pants, though he’s none too happy about it. From AP:

“Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway,” Moore said after the hearing.

Moore said he wouldn’t have a problem with people being arrested for wearing provocative clothing but that he’d trust law enforcement officials to use their discretion. He couldn’t be sure whether police would act on that provision or if Montana residents would challenge it.

“I don’t have a crystal ball,” Moore said.

I just write the laws, you can’t expect me to worry about their constitutionality or implications!”

Source:Reason

Montana is sort of known for being part of the Libertarian West. People who don’t want big government in their bedrooms or wallets, or schools. That they just want to be left alone and allowed to live freely and enjoy and live off the land in their vast beautiful state. Before this new Congress Montana’s two U.S. Senators were both Democrats. And neither one of them could be accused of supporting big government and wanting to empower big government over the individual. Their new Republican Steve Daines seems to fall in that same category.

Which is why I’m surprised that one of their legislatures one of their state senators would propose a law outlawing certain outfits that can be worn in public. A clear violation of personal freedom and freedom of choice. We are not talking about men and women going naked in public in Montana. Just about what they actually wear in public. Having to do with tight pants like biking pants. They stopped short of banning skin-tight skinny jeans for women and skin-tight jeans for men. And that might have to do with their cowboy and cowgirl industry that they have out there.

You would think even a Montana state senator who represents maybe twenty-thousand people would have better things to do than try to play the state father. And dictate what adults who I’m guessing he views as his daughters and sons what they can wear in public. Again we’re not talking about indecent exposure and men and women showing up naked or something, just tight outfits. You would think this senator instead might have things like, gee I don’t know the state budget, public education, taxes, law enforcement, just to use as examples on his mind to worry about instead. But no, he’s worried about how free adults dress in public.
Just Kidding News: School May Be Banning Skinny Jeans

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

BBC: Tories, The Course of Margaret Thatcher (2001)

Posted on February 14, 2015 by Rik Schneider

.

I’m not an expert on British politics obviously, but I do follow their politics and government similar to how British political junkies follow American politics. And what the British Labour Party went through from 1997 after they just lost the U.K. Government and were back in the opposition for the first time since 1979 and really didn’t start recovering until 2008 or 2009 when David Cameron became their leader in opposition, looks very similar to me how the American Republican Party looked in 1961. After they just lost the White House and were now not only the opposition party in America, but the minority party in both chambers of Congress with small minorities at that.

It took the Republican Party in the 1960s really 6-8 years before they started recovering from the 1960 presidential loss with Richard Nixon. They didn’t have that one voice that could unite the whole party together. The Conservatives with the Northeastern Progressives and their growing religious conservative base in the South. The British Conservatives in the late 1990s and 2000s were much worst off actually than the 1960s Republicans. The American and British systems of government are obviously very different. Where in America you can still be in power even without the White House. By controlling either the Senate or House in Congress and having a say in the national agenda.

In Britain winner takes all. The majority party in the House of Commons in Parliament decides who the Prime Minister is and can form the U.K. Government. And because the Conservatives lost in 2001 and 2005 and the fact that Britain doesn’t have what America has in mid-term elections, they were out of power the whole time from 1997 until May of 2010. Thirteen-years and were stuck in the minority in Parliament and as the opposition party as well. And they pre-David Cameron never had that one leader that could bring the whole party together and convince their country that the Conservatives should be back in charge in London and back in government.

The Conservatives were in charge in Britain for eighteen-years from 1979-97. That is a long time to have all the power in one country, especially a country of sixty-million or so. And always having to be responsible for governing the country and having to deal with all the bad and good on your own. And I think they just burned out and the British people wanted a different voice and a different vision in how to lead their country. Which is what Tony Blair represented as New Labour as someone who would use government to try to empower people. And not try to run everything in the country through government. And Tony Blair was able to lead Britain for ten-years with that message.

Posted in Originals, U.K. Tories | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Columbia Classic’s: Pushover (1954) Fred McMurray & Kim Novak Star

Posted on February 14, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Source:Columbia Classic’s

“Money isn’t dirty, just people are”. One of the better lines from Pushover delivered by the great Kim Novak who was great at delivering lines because she had a great voice and came off as so real because she was so real. She acted as if she was the person she was playing and delivered the lines not as an actress, but as if she was the person she was playing. I’ve at best seen bits and pieces of Pushover and saw the whole movie last night in preparation for this blog. And I was very impressed and saw a great crime drama involving real people and how they deal with bad situations.

Pushover starts off as being about a police stake out of a girlfriend of a bank robber that the police are after. Who stole two-hundred-thousand-dollars from a bank. They believe the girlfriend played by Kim Novak might be in on the operation or at the very least knows about it. And that her boyfriend is going to see her and perhaps tell her what he knows and where to meet her and all of that. Fred McMurray plays either a police sergeant or senior detective on this case who is leading the stake out and only has a police lieutenant to report to. He meets the girlfriend on purpose and they hit it off immediately.

Lona played by Kim Novak figures out that Paul Sheridan is a cop and has been investigating her. And he confesses to that and tries to get her to go downtown with him to tell the police what she knows about the bank robbery. She refuses and instead suggests that they get the money and split it and run off together. Paul refuses Lona’s offer strongly at first, but also wants to protect her from her boyfriend and the police in the stake out and tells her about the stake out and how to behave. How to answer the phone and how to talk to people and when to leave her apartment and everything else.

Paul finally gives in, but without a strong push from Lona. And now they are completely working together during this stake out that Paul is supposed to be leading as the senior detective or sergeant on the case. And now they are working together and just trying to buy time and not get caught and figured out while Paul’s men on the case are getting more suspicious of her and want to know what she knows about the case. Paul starts off as a good cop in the movie, but falls in love with the target he’s supposed to be investigating and the case goes bad from there.

Posted in Classic Movies, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Nation: Opinion: Leighton Akio Woodhouse: These Motel Rooms Are The Last Resort For Families Without Homes

Posted on February 13, 2015 by Derik Schneider

Motel
The Nation: Opinion: Leighton Akio Woodhouse: These Motel Rooms Are the Last Resort For Families Without Homes

I saw a HBO documentary back in the summer of 2010 about families who couldn’t afford apartments even and lost their homes due to the Great Recession. These people by in large at least before the Great Recession were educated with good jobs with both parents working. But now finding themselves without a home and out of work and for some reason not even able to find affordable public housing. I think that story also took place in Los Angeles. Both parents were able to find jobs again, but still not able to find an apartment for their family.

What that family was able to find was similar to what the family in this Nation story was able to find. The family in the film was better off and found a motel room for families who couldn’t afford apartments. But the motel wasn’t located in a crime and drug infested neighborhood. And the HBO family had a room with two beds and I believe an actual kitchen and not two mattress’ like the family in the Nation story. I bring this up because it is pretty sad, but also gives some hope that struggling families don’t have to live in a shelter or under bridge some place like that. We could find them temporary housing while they get better jobs and are able to move out on their own.

We could set up a system where families like this could stay at some type of housing center, for lack of a better term, that would serve as their temporary housing, but also as a transition and improvement center. Where they could get the healthcare, rehab, education, job training and job placement that they need to finally get a good job and not only move out of the center, but into a good apartment or home. Living independently and in freedom and not have to stick these motels or centers in rundown areas, but in middle class communities where they could find good jobs and not be surrounded by crime and drug addicts. And this could be paid for out of current public assistance budgets and run by private non-profits.

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

The Week: Opinion: Pascal Emmanuel Gobry: Hey, Liberals: Conservatives Don’t Have to be Moderate to be Smart

Posted on February 13, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

Reform Conservatives
The Week: Opinion: Pascal Emmanuel Gobry: Hey, Liberals: Conservatives Don’t Have to be Moderate to be Smart

Back in the mid and late 1980s as the Democratic Party had just lost its second straight presidential election a landslide and third landslide lost in twelve years and about to lose their fourth landslide in 1988 a new democratic coalition emerged in the Democratic Party. And essentially took over the party by the early 1990s. And was made of governors for the most part and Washington outsiders in general. Bill Clinton is the most famous member of this group, but add Governor Mike Dukakis, when Governor Bob Kerry, Senate John Kerry, Senator Gary Hart, Senator Al Gore, Representative Dick Gephardt and many others.

These New Democrats ideologically formed the Democratic Leadership Council, The New Democratic Coalition and The New Democratic Network which is still in business today. The New Democrat would be the Democratic version of the Reform Conservative. Smart Liberal vs. Smart Conservative. The Republican Party has been going through an adjustment really since 2007 and haven’t recovered yet politically from the Iraq War, Great Recession and other mistakes both politically and on policy grounds from the Bush Administration. And looking for ways to comeback and broaden their coalition to become a governing party again which means having the White House.

But what the Republican Party is going through now is very similar to what the Democratic Party went through in the 1980s. As their far flank meaning the Far-Left if not took over their party at least was viewed that way by too many Americans that it not only cost them one presidential election after another, but they lost four landslides within a sixteen-year period from 1972-88. Because Democrats were seen as Far-Left. Anti-business, anti-military, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-success, anti-wealth, pro-tax and spend, pro-big government as it related both to the economy but personal health as well. They were seen as anti-law enforcement and pro-convicted criminal and anti-victim.

What the Republican Party is going through now happened to the Democratic Party forty-five fifty-years ago when the New-Left from the 1960s became a big part of the Democratic Party. Except the GOP doesn’t have a Far-Left and is seen as their Far-Right taking over their party. To the point they are seen as anti-women, anti-minority, anti-secular, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-Latino in general, anti-science, anti-intelligence, anti-education and I’m sure several other things that I can’t think of right now that Americans tend to support. And now you have so-called Reform Conservatives who are trying to change the image of the GOP so they don’t scare so many Americans. Especially people who would be willing to vote Republican if they don’t scare them.

The New Democrats didn’t move the Democratic Party to the middle, as much as the mainstream media wants to portray that. They moved the party back to the Center-Left where John F. Kennedy had it and where Lyndon Johnson wanted to leave it and Jimmy Carter wanted to bring the party back to. And say Democrats are also pro-military, but don’t think we should try to govern the world. We are pro-business, but don’t believe business’s should go unregulated or untaxed and believe their workers should have a right to organize if they choose to. We believe in law enforcement, but we also believe in civil liberties and being smart on crime. And not arresting people who didn’t hurt anyone. We believe in government and freedom and that government when used in a limited way and empower those who need it to also live in freedom.

And hopefully what the Reform Conservatives are saying is that Republicans are still conservative, but we aren’t the Far-Right and we are not haters. They believe in the American melting pot and liberal democracy and that conservative values based on freedom from both an economic and personal perspective can benefit everyone. And if they are successful in doing that as the New Democrats were successful in the Democratic Party, they’ll save the Republican Party and save the center in American politics. Where a center-left Democratic Party and a center-right Republican Party can both equally compete for the votes of Americans who don’t see themselves a pure Democrats or pure Republicans.

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

Ben Shapiro: ‘Why Jews Vote Leftist’

Posted on February 13, 2015 by Rik Schneider



Ben Shapiro_ Why Jews Vote Leftist_

Source:Truth Revolt– Right-wing columnist Ben Shapiro.

“Ben Shapiro takes a clear-eyed look at why American Jews vote for the anti-Israel Left.”

From Ben Shapiro

The two things that I agree with Ben Shapiro on is that American-Jews tend to more identify with their Jewish blood, meaning ethnicity than their Jewish religion. And that a lot of Americans-Jews aren’t Jewish in a religious sense. A lot of Jews are either secular or practice another religion. I have a friend who is half Jewish and half Irish and raised Catholic like a lot of Irish-Americans.

And the other thing being that Jews like a lot of other Americans ethnics (at least of European descent) tend to identify more with their ethnicity than their religion. Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Greek-Americans, Polish-Americans (to use as examples) all fall into this category and all have their own American holiday celebrating their ethnicity and culture.

Now why do American Jews tend to vote Democratic and part of that huge Democratic melting pot that Democrats have to have to win the White House every four years? Part of it I believe has to do with history. A Democratic President FDR saved the Europeans-Jews in World War II after a lot of them were murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust.

Another one being that the Republican Party is still tied very tightly with the Far-Right that tends to be Southern and rural based that tends to be Anglo-Saxon and anti-Semitic. The Far-Left in the Democratic Party also tends to be anti-Semitic. The difference being that Democrats don’t need the Far-Left at all in order to win.

If the Republican Party were ever able to dump their Far-Right (which includes part of the Tea Party) they could appeal to American-Jews. Because Jews in America tend to like or are at least opened to things like economic freedom, lower taxes and regulations, strong national defense, at least outside of the Northeast. The Northeast is somewhat dominated by the Far-Left at least when it comes to Jewish voters. But the rest of the country could be decent territory for the GOP in appealing to American-Jews as long as they aren’t seen as anti-Semitic and inline with the Far-Right of the GOP on social issues.

Posted in New Right, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Foreign Affairs: Alexander J. Motyl: ‘Why Vladimir Putin’s Days Are Numbered’

Posted on February 13, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Goodbye, PutinSource:Foreign Affairs Magazine– President Vladimir Putin: Russian Federation.

“The longer the Russian war against Ukraine continues, the more likely it is that President Vladimir Putin’s regime will collapse.

Despite Putin’s bluster, the authoritarian regime he has constructed is exceedingly brittle. At the center stands Putin; surrounding him, the power-hungry loyalists he has folded into his inner circle. Some, called the siloviki, belong to powerful institutions such as the secret police or the army. Others, formally affiliated with various government agencies, are loyal only to Putin. In such a system, sycophantism is rewarded above good governance, empire-building runs rampant, policy loses its effectiveness, and corruption becomes routine…

From Foreign Affairs Magazine

If you look at how the Russian Federation is set up and what type of country and the government they are supposed to have on paper, it is very sound and looks very similar as the United States. They are officially a Federal Republic with checks and balances in their Federal Government. A strong executive, but independent judiciary and legislative branches. With states that they call republics, who are also independent of the Federal Government. With their own government’s and independently elected governors of their republics. Sounds like America, doesn’t it?

But that is not how President Vladimir Putin governs Russia and no he’s not as bad as Joe Stalin and a lot of Russian dictators from the Soviet era. Russia is a hell of a lot better off now than they were in the Soviet era as far as being able to move around the country and being able to build lives for themselves and being able to live in some type of freedom. And they do now have some independent media and access to foreign media. But this is not a liberal democracy by any stretch of the imagination and doesn’t even advertise itself as one. And if Vlad Putin is not a dictator officially, he is certainly one in practice with all the power he’s centralized in his own office.

But it looks like President Putin may have gone too far, because as much economic progress that Russia has made in the last fifteen years or so under his leadership, that has mostly been from their energy industry that is state-owned. Russia is one of the top three energy producers in the world. This is a country that should’ve been an economic superpower sixty-years ago with their natural resources and their educated public. But of course their communist system ruined that for them and the Putin Administration hasn’t done much to develop their other industries and create other industries. That America did a long time ago and that Europe in Japan did sixty-years ago.

And now that oil prices are falling and the with the American/European economic sanctions on Russia because of their unlawful invasion of Ukraine and all the money that Russia has spent to try to occupy parts of Ukraine which is a large country, the Russian economy is taking a big hit. And people in the Russian Government and around the country know this and have only their President Putin to blame for that. And as a result President Putin’s strong hand on that entire country of one-fifty-million people is getting a lot weaker. And hopefully his days as dictator of Russia are numbered.

Posted in Foreign Affairs, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment