Billy Estabrook: Mysteries & Scandals Ava Gardner

Source:Alison Martino-

Source:The Daily Review

Ava Gardner, was a true real-life Hollywood Goddess. And what I mean by that is that she couldn’t, or didn’t separate her onstage character and he she wanted to be seen onstage with the person she was offstage and in private life. Was she a great actress, or a great real-life character who played herself in her movies and offstage? If she was a great real-life character instead then she didn’t need to be a great actress to play herself in all of her parts. Because all she was doing onstage was being herself. Her roller coaster up and down almost rock and roll wild life was a movie and a character in itself. She didn’t need any practice to play herself in her biggest movie role of her life. The Life of Ava Gardner, which no one could play as well as she did.

One thing that she had in common with The Lizard King Jim Morrison is that she lived life once and lived it her way. The attitude being that you only live one and you’re only going to get on crack out of life. So you might as well live it your way and get everything out of life that you can and try to enjoy as much of it as you possibly can. All of the men, all the partying and drinking, even if it makes you age faster than had you bothered to take care of herself, you still only live once. So you might as well as enjoy it as much as you possibly can. Ava Gardner made it to 67 and Jim Morrison died at 27, but if Ava was taking cocaine and perhaps other narcotics to go with the alcohol and does that in her twenties she doesn’t have the long great career that she did.

Ava Gardner, is one of the hottest, cutest and sexiest Hollywood Goddess’s of all-time. As well as one of the best actress’s and even with the lifestyle that she lived, similar to Rita Hayworth she was so great and did enough to make sure she was around to have a long great career, even if her life wasn’t that long considering she dies before she’s 70 when he was still active and working. Had Ava took care of herself, she might still be alive today. But again when its your life to live as you please as long as you aren’t hurting any innocent person it is really up to you how long and great of a life that she did. Ava wasn’t about longevity, but a quality when it came to life and she lived it her way.

Thom Hartmann: Thor Benson: 'Stop Calling Bernie Sanders a Socialist?'

Source: The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann-  Thom Hartmann & Thor Benson.

Source:The New Democrat 

I believe the best way to differentiate a Socialist, or Democratic Socialist from someone who is way Far-Left and a statist like a Communist, would be to put the two factions in separate groups. Democratic Socialists, which is the mainstream form of Socialists in the world and Marxists. Which is a fringe statist faction about as Far-Left as you get on that side of the spectrum. Bernie Sanders, is a Democratic Socialist. Fidel Castro, was a Marxist at least up until ten years, or so when Cuba started privatizing parts of their economy. But Fidel is still a Marxist on most issues like when it comes to personal freedom, which is he's against and individual rights.

What you get with Marxism is state-ownership of the entire economy, plus no individual rights. Individuals are essentially subjects, or children of the state with no rights of their own and not even allowed to think and speak for themselves. In a Marxist state the truth is what the state tells you it is. You work and live where the state says you do and I could go on, but I won't. In a social democracy the job of government is to see that everyone is taken care of, but not to try to do everything for them. Private economy, private ownership, property rights even, but a large central state and welfare state to make sure that no one has to go without anything that they need to live well.

Under a Bernie Sanders Administration lets say, the Federal Government would be bigger, taxes would be higher across the board perhaps, the roles of the states and localities would probably be smaller with more power when it comes to social welfare going to the Feds. But our Federal Republic would essentially still be the same. Federalism would still be alive in America with our three levels of government Federal, state and local. Schools, banks, energy companies, hospitals, wouldn't get nationalized and most of the economy, or at least a large percentage of it would still be in private hands. But taxes would be higher, even on the middle class and the Federal Government would have more responsibility to see to it that every American is taken care of.
Source:The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann

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.