Dejan Jankovic: Masters of Cinema (1972) Pia Lindstorm: Interviewing Alfred Hitchcock

Source:Dejan Jankovic- The Master of Cinema Alfred Hitchcock.

Source:The Daily Review

"Alfred Hitchcock (UK, 1899-1980) is undeniably the world's most famous film director. His name has become synonymous with the cinema, and each new generation takes the same pleasure in rediscovering his films, which are now treasures of our artistic heritage. Hitchcock started out in the British silent cinema of the 1920s, which reached its peak with successful thrillers such as "The Man Who Knew Too Much" (1934), "Sabotage" (1936) and "The Lady Vanishes" (1938). Recognized as a 'young genius', Hitchcock moved to Hollywood and set about reinventing cinematic tradition,combining the modern with the classic in films such as "Vertigo" (1957), "North by Northwest" (1959)and "The Birds" (1963). Hitchcock gave talented actors such as James Stewart and Cary Grant the chance to play enduring antiheroes and imprinted the public imagination with the myth of the 'blonde', as embodied by Grace Kelly, Kim Novak and Tippi Hedren."

From Dejan Jankovic

Alfred Hitchcock, is the master of suspense and perhaps the master of entertainment when it comes to movies. Because here's a director who can scare the hell out of you and make you laugh hysterically in the same scene. North by Northwest from 1959 is probably the best example of this, where you have a mystery suspense, Cold War, movie, involving espionage and yet it is also a very funny movie. With funny sarcastic lines and characters in each scene of the movie. With people cracking jokes as they're facing life and death consequences. Cary Grant, with the quip about he has dinner and theater plans right as he's being kidnapped. And saying how inconvenient the kidnapping is for him.

Not sure you could put together a better comedic team when it comes to actor and director than Cary Grant and Alfred Hitchcock. They were like Magic and Kareem (to use an NBA basketball analogy) as far as the professional chemistry that they had together especially when it came to humor. They shared the exact same off the cuff, out of nowhere, sense of humor, where they could both make fun of practically anything. 

What I love about Hitchcock, is that he gave you best of everything when it came to his movies and put everything that he had to offer on a lot of those movies. North by Northwest, my favorite Hitchcock as well as my favorite movie of all-time, is a perfect example of that.

Hitchcock, gave you mystery, suspense, drama, comedy, action and even horror, in the same movie. And he seemed to be the best at all of these types of films at least when he put them all together.  North by Northwest and To Catch a Thief, are both mystery suspense movies and yet they are also both very funny. With funny people and a lot of funny lines, funny scenes and with Cary Grant, comedic improvising. And maybe Hitchcock is where I get a lot of my humor as well. 

Hitch wanted to scare people and then would use humor and charm, perhaps so he wouldn't lose his audience, but also because that is exactly how he was personally. If you listen to him narrate his TV series The Alfred Hitchcock Hour you see him almost doing standup as he talks about his shows. Hitchcock, is the master of suspense thriller, but he's also one of the best comedic directors of all-time as well. 

C-SPAN: 'Q&A: Christopher Hitchens'

Source:C-SPAN- talking to Christopher Hitchens in 2009.

Source:The New Democrat

"Christopher Hitchens, contributing editor to Vanity Fair and the Atlantic Monthly, discusses his current paperback, "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." The book was a New York Times Bestseller and a finalist for The National Book Award. Program from Sunday, April 26, 2009." 

From C-SPAN

I guess Chris Hitchens rouge's list would be similar to Richard Nixon's enemies list. Both men have come across a lot of people in life that simply don't like them and who they don't like at all. But when you're a self-described Socialist and you are perhaps even to the left of the British Labour Party (a Democratic Socialist party) in Britain where Hitchens is from and you put yourself behind a lot of Far-Left fringe causes like supporting Fidel Castro in the 1960s and calling all sorts of people on the Right like Henry Kissinger and Dick Nixon war criminals, even though you don't apply that label to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in the 2000s, you're going to make a lot of enemies.

Chris Hitchens, I guess was always a Democratic Socialist on economic policy and perhaps social issues, except for perhaps civil liberties where he became a Neoconservative hawk in the 2000s. And that is where I'm getting to, because he was a strong defender of President George W. Bush's so-called War on Terror in the 2000s, including the Patriot Act and War in Iraq. 

You know you're petty unique when you're a Socialist on economic policy and a Neoconservative hawk on national security, foreign policy and civil liberties. Chris Hitchens, was more fun for me and fun to talk about and was funnier when he was a committed Socialist across the board.

Yoo Jay: The Art & Freedom to Offend People

Source:Yoo Jay- The great comedian George Carlin.

Source:The Daily Review

If I’m going to listen to so-called political comedians, I’m going to first listen to people who know what they’re talking about. I’m not going to go to a mechanic to get my knee examined, or hire that person to do my taxes. Just like I’m not going to listen to a comedian who simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about and perhaps just looks at politics from a stereotypical point of view. As far as how they look at politics, politicians, Democrats, Republicans, etc. Then once I’ve determined that the comedian is knowledgable about politics, or whatever the issue is, they got to be funny. And use their own humor and not use material that a hundred other comedians and other people have already used.

To me at least comedy is only funny when it is accurate, or at least not exaggerated. So to make fat jokes about plus-sized curvy women who are actually in great shape, especially when they come from a rail-thin woman who gets blown to the ground every time there’s a breeze in the air, is not funny and also doesn’t even make sense. Now a fat joke about a women, or man who goes to sleep at the all you can eat meat lovers buffet every night so they don’t miss anything, would be funny. But it would also be true. Jokes to me at least have to make sense and they make sense when they’re believable and correct. Like making fun of hypocrites to use as example. Like the guy who preaches about the dangers of adultery and homosexuality when he’s cheating on his third wife and having an affair with a man. You could say this person knows these dangers from personal experience.

I also tend to only listen to comedians who are consistent and non-partisan. Meaning they’re not looking to just bash Republicans, or Democrats, but people who they see as either funny, or bad politicians, or a combination of both. I’ll also listen to comedians who lean in one direction, or the other, but smart and honest enough to know that their side isn’t perfect either. And will go after their side from time to time when they feel they deserve it. Dennis Miller on the Right, Bill Maher, fairly Far-Left, Lewis Black on the Left, P.J. O’Rourke on the Right, whose not a fan of Democrats, or Republicans and the same thing with Chris Buckley the son of William F. Buckley.

George Carlin, is one of my favorite comedians and I don’t agree with all of his satire. But he was about as non-partisan as it came with his comedy even though his personal politics leaned very left at least on economic policy. But he didn’t make fun of Democrats, or Republicans, but he made fun of politicians who happened to be Democrats and Republicans. And he made fun of voters who voted for politicians. And I guess his idea of a politician was someone who would practically do anything to get reelected, or move on to the next level in government. Someone like that will get taken seriously by both sides of the isle and will also attract followers. Because a, they know what they’re talking about, but just as important they’re honest enough to talk about it. As opposed to the partisan comedian who bashes the other side as hard as they defend their own.

Political comedy and comedy in general needs to be funny first and of course. But it’s not going to be funny if its not accurate, or at least not exaggerated. And when you’re hitting one side, keep in mind someone is hitting your side and perhaps doing a damn good job at it. And you would better off if you can take a joke. Instead of acting you’re all perfect while the other side is loaded and overflowing with morons that need to be deported, because you’re out of room for morons. Then it also has to be consistent and this gets to political correctness. If redneck jokes are acceptable, so are ghetto jokes. If right-wing Christian jokes are acceptable, then so are right-wing Muslim jokes. And that is just a couple of examples. That great comedians make fun of people that deserve to be made fun of. Instead of picking out one side and hammering them, while they’re trying to defend everyone else.
Source:Yoo Jay

Say No To Democide: Free Speech or Offensive Speech: Should We Let Haters Speak?

Source:The New Democrat- Free speech is welcome in a free society. 

Source:The New Democrat

To put to bluntly, if you don’t like free speech, you’re probably not a fan of liberal democracy and sure as hell not America as well. The First Amendment, is not something you can mess with simply because you don’t like the opposition and what they have to say, or you’re frustrated about their ability to communicate their message and attract followers. Which is how today’s so-called Progressives feel about Fox News, right-wing talk radio to use as examples. And launching campaigns to get those organizations shut down and shut up.

Free speech, just doesn’t protect Americans right to be kind, intelligent and enlightened. But it protects our right to free speech and that even includes the right to say stupid things and believe garbage, to be nice that no intelligent person could ever believe as the truth. I mean if you actually look at the First Amendment, what does it say? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” So where do you see in that where Congress could pass a law banning offensive speech in America?

One of the great things about living in a liberal democracy, or liberalized society, is the ability to put all the information, facts and views out there. Where everyone can be heard and where we know where everyone stands. The right to free speech doesn’t entitle anyone to respect. You can pretty much say whatever you want short of harassing, libeling and inciting violence. And then the public gets to figure out whose right and whose wrong. Whose smart, whose stupid, whose tolerant and whose hateful. With public consequences coming from the people as far as what we say. Short of actually shutting people up and giving them governmental sanctions for what they say.

So the answer to the question should we let haters speak is sort of a moot question. Because we already do and there isn’t a hell of a lot that can be do about that short of amending the First Amendment. Which is almost impossible to do anyway, but again if you’re a fan of free speech and the First Amendment which all Liberals are including myself, that is exactly how it should be. If you’re not a Liberal and you’re not a fan of free speech and would prefer collective speech with a so-called progressive enlightened committee deciding what is proper and what isn’t proper when it comes to speech, then you have a big problem with free speech. And you’re liberal credentials are probably non-existent.
Source:Yoo Jay

The Young Turks: 'Al Gore, Breathable Booze & Shade Balls'

Source:The Young Turks- TCM film historian and sometimes TYT political analyst Ben Mankiewicz. A much better film historian than political analyst, but he's also an excellent political satirist.

Source:The Daily Review

"A portion of our Young Turks Main Show from August 14, 2015. For more go to:The Young Turks. 

Cenk, Ben, Iadarola, and Richard Eskow hosting today. The outside possibility of Al Gore jumping into the presidential race is being leaked, despite the fact that his spokesperson denied it. Cenk doesn’t believe that it’s completely out of the question. Discussion of who would be hurt the most by Gore entering the race.

A breathable bar in London allows patrons to take in their alcohol via the mist in the air filling the bar. The humidity is set at 140% and a moody pop electro soundtrack playing. The LA Reservoir will use 96 million reflective balls to sit on top of the water there to prevent much of the water from evaporating. Ball jokes throughout." 

From The Young Turks

Al Gore for president? Why, would be my question about that. A simple one word question about that. "Vote for Al Gore for president, again and I"ll do..." What, exactly?

Al Gore, the man who lost the presidency to a college frat brat, who thought he was still at Yale and perhaps failed his freshmen year 22 years in a row and suddenly wakes up at the age of 40 and realizes he now has kids, is married and needs a full-time job that will support his family. Who gets into politics, because his father is George H.W. Bush. And I'm speaking about George W. Bush of course.

Al Gore, is not Dick Nixon, or even Bill Clinton. He's someone whose more than capable of being happy in the private sector and making a lot of money and speaking about issues that he cares about and writing about them.

Gore wanted to be president in the 1980s and 1990s, which is why he runs in 2000 and as Vice President to a very popular President Clinton and with almost no opposition in the party to him, he had the perfect opportunity to be President of the United States, but he blew it. It took him about six months to figure out what type of presidential campaign he was going to run in 2000.

If Al Gore, wants to be Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of State, National Security Director, by all means he's qualified for any of those positions and would serve the next Democratic president very well.

But run again for president when the avenue to get there is not clear unlike in 2000 when you were a heavy favorite to beat Joe Average who lives on Main street in Smithville, whose a swell kind of guy and everything and everyone's favorite drinking partner at the local tavern and hardest worker at the factory (when he's sober) and I'm thinking of George W. Bush obviously as far as what G.W. brought to that campaign as far as qualifications: doesn't make sense to me. 

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur: Jerry Seinfeld Caught By The Sensitivity Police

Source:The Young Turks talking about comedian Jerry Seinfeld: "What's the deal with the Political Correctness Police? I thought this was America." Not sure if Jerry Seinfeld actually said that, or not.

Source:The New Democrat

Damn! I actually agree with both Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur on the same show, about the same topic. They both just scored a touchdown and converted a two-point conversion in the liberal column for me. Maybe they aren’t as radical and socialist as I give them credit, or blame for. Depending on your perspective. It would be one thing if Jerry Seinfeld was just talking to comedians of one race, in this case Caucasian, because that is the only people he wants to talk to. But that is not what this is about. He interviews people he thinks are funny. And in this case the recent comedians he spoke to, all happened to be Caucasian.

It would be one thing if Jerry said and I can call him Jerry since I’m his German nephew whose not a Nazi, it would be one thing if Jerry said, “those African-Americans, always bitching about how life is tough in America. They can’t take a joke. I’ve seen Marxist dictators with bigger sense of humors. I know this since I interviewed them. If they think they got it so bad in America, why don’t they go back to Africa.” But he didn’t say anything like that and is not talking to people based on race, or ethnicity. He simply wants to talk to people who make him laugh. This current group he found just happen to all be from the same race.

And oh by the way, if lets say Chris Rock was doing a show and he only interviewed African-American male comedians, no one would be making an issue of this. Well maybe Breitbart, or Fox News. This same argument could be made against affirmative action. Why not just go where the talent is and just judge people as individuals and let the most qualified people regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, get the best jobs. And leave whatever is left for the wannabes of all races, ethnicities, male, female, who gives a damn! There times when one group of people, fill in the blank which group that is, looks a little better than other groups as far as having their members being part of what’s happening in America. That is the way freedom and private enterprise works.

Cenk Uygur made another great point and its the boy who cried wolf analogy. That real racism, is racism. When people are being denied access in life and given harsher treatment simply because of their race, that’s racism. But when you try to apply that label to anything you can think of to try to make people especially who aren’t minorities in this country, look like bigots and have no real evidence of the charge that you’re making, you become the boy, or girl who cries wolf. You end up looking worst than real bigots and sure as hell than the person that you want to look like a bigot. Its like swinging for the fences, to use a baseball analogy, when you’re a 150 pound shortstop who has never a hit a home run in your life, even in Little League. And every part of the outfield is at least 400 feet away. It doesn’t work.

Timothy Taylor: 'States as The Laboratories of Democracy: An Historical Note'

Source:The New Democrat- U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Perhaps the most famous metaphor defending the virtues of US federalism is that states can act as laboratories of democracy: that is,  states can enact a range of policies, and can then learn from the experiences of other states. The phrase was coined by Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1932 Supreme Court case of... 

From Timothy Taylor 

U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis: "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." 

From the Legal Information Institute 

"Nick Gillespie (Reason.com) discusses federalism. Liberty Pen." 

Source:Liberty Pen- John Stossel talking to Reason Magazine editor Nick Gillespie.

From Liberty Pen

I guess one of the advantages of living in a country of three-hundred and fifteen-million people that has fifty states, is that it gives you this great opportunity to see what works and what doesn’t. And what works and where it works and what doesn’t and where it doesn’t work. That is the beauty of a Federal Republic. 

We’re still one country as Progressives and Social Democrats like to say, which is true of course. But within that country you have all of these states, counties and cities, that are not just there, unlike let's says the United Kingdom, which has a unitarian national government, but they have real say over their own affairs within their own jurisdiction.

Federalism, doesn’t mean that states have all the power and that the Feds are just responsible for national security, foreign affairs, trade, and the currency. And it also doesn’t mean that the Feds have most if not all the power. 

If we had one superstate with most of the power in the national government, we wouldn’t have a Federal system and wouldn’t be a Federal Republic. We would be a unitarian state and perhaps not even a republic. 

Federalism, simply defines the roles of the Feds, states and localities in what each level of government is responsible for doing. The Feds, are primarily responsible for national security, foreign affairs, but are also responsible for homeland security, interstate crime, and commerce.

The states and localities, are primarily responsible for what happens in their own jurisdiction. Infrastructure, education, law enforcement, regulating and developing their economies, like encouraging investment prosecuting predatory behavior (To use as examples) But the Feds have a role here in how these issues relate to the country as well. Not to run them for the states and localities and take over them, but to offer input and resources. And regulate interstate commerce and trade and prosecute interstate crimes. 

And under a federalist system like this, you get to see what works and what doesn’t and where. As it relates to education, social insurance for people in need, economic development, energy, criminal justice and a lot of other areas.

Federalism and the Federal Republic, is essentially locked in stone in America. I’ve argued in the past that what today’s so-called Progressives (Social Democrats, really) for them to accomplish what they want to do politically in America, they would need several constitutional amendments, if not rewrite it, or eliminate it. Because they would like to see a lot more power in America transferred from the private sector and states, to the Federal Government. As it relates to education, current social insurance programs and would like to create a superstate in America in the form of a welfare state that would be completely managed by Washington. But even people in their ranks like Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, aren’t looking to break up our federalist system.

Myself, I’m a Liberal Federalist, which means that I might not agree with everything that a state is doing, but as long as what they’re doing is within the U.S. Constitution, they are within their rights when it comes to their own laws and policies. 

So for example, if Georgia wants private school vouchers and passes that law, I’m not a fan of private school vouchers, but they are within their rights to do that. But if they passed a law that says certain people can’t go to certain public schools, because of their race, ethnicity, or religion, they would obviously be violating the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and perhaps the Georgia State Constitution as well.

We have a U.S. Constitution, that is like the official rule book for American government at all levels. And as long as government is following the rules of the rulebook, they are within their rights. And if the people don’t like how their government is playing (so to speak) they can always fire them and replace them with people that they believe will represent them better. That is where liberal democracy comes into play in our Federal system. Which is why I call the United States a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. We’re not really one, or the other, but a free society and state that operates under both systems into one bigger system.