A&E Biography: Yvonne De Carlo

Source:Movie Documentary- Clark Gable & Yvonne De Carlo.

Source:The Daily Review

Yvonne De Carlo at least to me represents the total package when it comes to actresses and entertainers. After you get through her mesmerizing first impression of this beautiful baby-faced adorable Italian brunette, with a great shape, you also see a very intelligent woman with a great sense of humor and great dramatic ability as well. Her most famous role is probably as the mother on Adams Family, but she did so much before that.

Similar to Susan Hayward she's a women who didn't come from much with her father not in the picture and with a mother who didn't seem have much interest in raising her. Susan Hayward's issues with her parents were that they were poor and had to raise their kids in poverty. With Yvonne's family it was being born to father who wasn't around and a mother who wasn't ready to raise her. And yet by 1943 Yvonne gets her first break as an actress in the movie The Deerslayer starting a great career as a movie as well as TV actress and doing comedy, drama and dramatic comedy.

 I believe I would put Yvonne De Carlo on the dramatic/comedy side when it comes to great actors and actresses. Similar to Elizabeth Taylor, Joan Collins, Yvonne De Carlo, and many others. An actress who was very good at both comedy and drama, but even better when those genres were combined, When you would have a great drama with a lot of funny people in it with a lot of lets say sarcasm and flipped lines. And perhaps having funny actors and entertainers who would add their own material and improvise with their own expressions making their characters even more entertaining and funny.

Cary Grant perhaps is the master of dramatic comedy which is why he worked so well with Alfred Hitchcock because he loved dramatic comedy and had a real knack for it. Yvonne was an actress who would have been a great soap actress both on TV and in the movies because she was so good at delivering clever lines, putting people down, but doing it in a funny, honest, entertaining way, that didn't make her seem mean.

I haven't seen all of Yvonne De Carlo's movies and have only gotten more familiar with her career in the last two years or so, but if you are interested in see some good Yvonne movies, I would suggest Death of a Scoundrel where she plays the executive investment of a business investor played George Sanders who really was a scoundrel, but speaking of dramatic comedy you almost have to like at least parts of the Clementi Sabourin character (played by George Sanders) with Yvonne's character there to keep the man honest and in check. They work really well in the movie and it almost seems like the Yvonne character hates Clementi in the movie and yet is never able to leave him until the end because there's something about him that she loves and not just the money he pays her.

Yvonne to me represents a actress that again was simply the total package as an actress. Great to look, great to listen to, but she was also a great actress and incredibly entertaining. Someone with style and substance who didn't have low self-esteem issues because she knew who she was and how good she was. Who didn't get picked up off the street by some agent or director because she had a great face or figure and then they make a project out of her and try to make her into at an acceptable actress. But someone who came from nothing and did the work to make herself a great actress. Who also happened to be beautiful, adorable, with a beautiful body as well. And represents Old Hollywood when substance was rated higher in style and where you had to be able to do the work and do it well to succeed in Hollywood and where physical looks weren't simply good enough.
Source:Movie Documentary

Daniel J. Mitchell: 'Disagreeing With Socialism, Despising Marxism'

Source:AIM- Marxist Socialist Karl Marx and Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders.

Source:The New Democrat 

"I wrote last week about evil of totalitarian ideologies such as communism and fascism and pointed out that both antifa and Nazis should be treated with complete disdain and ostracism.

And that led me to find common ground with my left-of-center friends, even though I don’t like many of their policies.

I don’t like redistribution…programs are financed with taxes and that the internal revenue code is enforced by coercion…if you catch me in a cranky mood, I’ll be like the stereotypical libertarian at Thanksgiving dinner and wax poetic about what’s wrong with the system. That being said, I much prefer the coercion found in western democracies compared to the totalitarian versions of coercion found in many other parts of the world. At least we have the rule of law, which limits (however imperfectly) capricious abuse by government officials. …our Constitution still protects many personal liberties, things that can’t be taken for granted in some places. Moreover, there is only a trivially small risk of getting abused by the state in western nations because you have unpopular views. And there’s little danger of persecution by government (at least nowadays) based on factors such as race and religion. This is what makes liberal democracy a good form of government (with “liberal” in this case being a reference to classical liberalism rather than the modern version). Unfortunately, there are some people in America that don’t believe in these principles." 

From Daniel J. Mitchell

I agree with Dan Mitchell about one thing in his piece on his blog that the point that I believe as well that John Judis argued in his column at The New Republic (now The Socialist Republic) is that what Judis called “liberal socialism” is really liberalism. (In his view) And that is what he and his political allies want. That Marxism and having complete national government control over everything in society, is at least a bridge too far. 

So instead of Marxism and complete socialist control over society that we should instead have a liberal society (in their view) where personal freedom is still maintained (at least to some extent) and even have a private sector with private enterprise, but where the central government would gain control over basic personal and human services that people have to have to live well in life.

In this democratic socialist socialist state, things like education, health care, health insurance, pensions, child care, employment insurance, paid leave, etc, would be under government control. But leave in the private sector in charge of things that people need less and in charge of luxury items things that people need to enjoy life and to get around: transportation, travel, hotels, entertainment, restaurants, basic products that we buy at stores. Where you would want some private competition at least to see that these products are made as well as possible and to keep prices down.

One problem with the Judis argument about both liberalism and socialism and then trying to combine them both into ideology, is that one reason they don't fit together, they don’t go together. Sort of like trying to fit a horse into a Ford Escort, or pairing a country girl up with a gangsta rapper and expecting them to hit it off. When they probably can barely understand what they other one is saying because they use such different slang and speak in very different dialects. 

Socialism (democratic or not) is still a very collectivist ideology where the people are expected to trust the central government (in this case Uncle Sam) to manage their lives for them and to even see they are seeing the right doctors and going to the right hospitals and deciding where their kids go to school.

American liberalism is based off of liberal democracy where you have a federal republic with three layers of government and sometimes four if you live inside of a city that is part of a county. For example, people in Chicago live in Cook County as well, because Chicago is also part of Cook County, as well as the State of Illinois and of course the United States. But then you also have the individual themselves with the freedom to regulate themselves and be able to decide where they live, where their kids go to school, where they get their health care and who they pay to provide their health care for them. A more complicated way of saying health insurance.

You also get a good deal of personal freedom in a liberal democracy. Like how we spend our money, who we live with, who we are romantically involved with, what we eat, drink, and smoke. How we communicate with each other and how we express ourselves individually. A complicated way of saying free speech and expression. With a government at each level not to make our decisions for us, but to regulate how we interact with each other. Stopping and punishing predators when they attempt or abuse the innocent.

Liberal democracy unlike democratic socialism is so decentralized, because America was created through a revolutionary war, were soon to be American citizens who were living under a dictatorial monarchy from Britain wanted to break away from that and be able to live in freedom and make their own decisions for themselves. Which is something that so-called Progressives today (Socialists in actuality) simply don’t understand about America. And Americans when they argue that America should be like a centralized social democracy like Europe. Plus, that facts that they hate individualism and tend to view Americans as stupid and needing a big centralized government to babysit them. So their kids aren’t sent to the wrong school in their view. (To use as one example)

The last and perhaps not least reason and problem, with the John Judis argument of what he calls liberal socialism, is that everywhere else in the world what they call liberalism in America, is called socialism everywhere else in the democratic world, at least. 

The democratic world views socialism as democratic socialism or social democracy, the less democratic or authoritarian world views socialism as socialism. Whether it’s practiced through democratic means like in Brazil, or through centralized authoritarian means like in Cuba and Venezuela. 

Again so-called Progressives today (Socialists in actuality) are always arguing that America should be more like Europe. Well, they could start with words and calling their view or form of liberalism for what is actually is in the real world which is socialism. Democratic socialism, if you prefer.

Socialists argue that if government-run health care works in Britain, then it would also work in America. Well, if the words socialist and socialism are okay in Britain, then they shouldn’t they be okay in America as well? If you practice socialist ideology in Britain and believe in it and aren’t just called a Socialist but damn proud of that, then why wouldn’t Americans who believe in the same politics and policies, have a problem with the Socialist label in America? 

Own up to your own politics and what they actually are and then make the case for them and why not only you support them, but why others should support them as well and you’ll gain credibility and power in America. When you try to hide your politics behind other labels is where you lose credibility and respect in American politics.

David Horowitz: 'Creepy Marxist Take-Over of the Democrat Party'

Source:Daily Idea- New-Right commentator David Horowitz, talking about the Democratic Party.

"David Horowitz: The Democratic Party is Now a Communist Party

David Joel Horowitz (born January 10, 1939) is an American conservative writer. He is a founder and current president of the think tank the David Horowitz Freedom Center; editor of the Center's publication, FrontPage Magazine; and director of Discover the Networks, a website that tracks individuals and groups on the political left. Horowitz also founded the organization Students for Academic Freedom.

Horowitz has written several books. In this talk he talks about his new book  "Big Agenda, Trump and The Left." 

From the Daily Idea

"David Horowitz: The Creepy Marxist Take-Over of the Democrat Party." Is originally what this post was about, with former New-Left (now New-Right) commentator David Horowitz talking about what he apparently believes is a Marxist-Communist takeover of the Democratic Party. But what said about the Democratic Party then, is longer available online, except for what I wrote about it here.  

David Horowitz is wrong about a big point here: the Bernie Sanders Socialists are at best 1/3 of the Democratic Party right now. And if you don't believe me, just look at Congressional Democrats where the so-called Progressive Caucus in the House (Progressives in name only and Socialists in actuality) have maybe 60 members in a caucus of around 200. 

And then you look at the Senate, only Bernie Sanders is a self-described Socialist and then you have people like Ed Markey and perhaps a few others who are very left-wing, but are also very pragmatic and will vote with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer most of the time. Who is a New York Progressive Democrat, but would be an insult to any Socialist anywhere in the world.  

The Republican Party has their Far-Right wing of Christian-Nationalists and Nationalists who claim to be Christian, but who are really just anti-minority, anti-women, militiamen. And the Democratic Party has their Far-Left wing made of Socialists (self-described and closeted) who in come cases want to transform the United States into a social democracy, but the radicals of that movement want America to be a socialist state, whether they ever admit it or not. 

Alan Eichler: Good Morning America- David Hartman Interviewing Lana Turner (1983)

Source: Alan Eichler- Hollywood Babydoll Lana Turner in 1983.

Source:The Daily Review

This might sound harsh but I believe Lana Turner's life represents a Hollywood character and actress who struggled to get out of character when she was off stage. Actresses and actors when they make it in Hollywood and even become popular to the point where everyone interested in movies and TV knows who they are pick up an image. And believe they have to live up to that image to keep their popularity and stay hot in the business. Even if that image is not positive.

Like with Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield being known as blond bimbos and living up to that on and off camera. Even though in real life where actually pretty intelligent. Or James Dean being known as a teen rebel who is always taking on society and never quite settles down personally and is always fighting.

I believe in Lana Turner's case she picked up the image as a soap actress character on some show where she has all the money any person could have and could have any man at anytime and ends up with every man and even marrying every man. Has kids with every man she gets involved with. (At least practically) Sounds like at least two female characters on General Hospital and if you're familiar with the show and are a fan, you probably know who I'm talking about.

Lana Turner was perfect for soap operas because she was perfect for dramatic comedy. Both in her personal life as far as how she lived both intentionally and unintentionally, but she was also a great actress and a very funny woman as well. Which made her perfect for dramatic comedy which is what most good soap operas are like General Hospital, Dallas, Melrose Place, to use as examples, Days of Our Lives. To me at least Lana Turner's life was the story of a great soap opera. A lot of ups and downs, falls, and dramatic comebacks and she was one of the best soap actresses, as well as characters that we've ever had.
Source:Alan Eichler

The American Spectator: Jeffrey Lord: 'ANTIFA- The New Ku Klux Klan'

Source: The American Spectator- ANTIFA Communists.

Source:The New Democrat

Here's an example of a right-winger in this case Jeffrey Lord (former political analyst at CNN) who doesn't want his side to and have to take any responsibility for anything negative that most Americans would view as not just negative but horrible. Which in this case would be racist bigotry and racist terrorism like the Ku Klux Klan and the broader Alt-Right. So what they'll do is to make it seem that these radicals are actually Democrats or even worst in their view, Liberals. Even if you you just took Liberalism 101 you would know that racial intolerance is not a liberal value, but racial intolerance is actually illiberal. Racial tolerance and racial blindness as far as how we judge people are liberal values. And anyone who is a true Conservative, Libertarian, Democratic Socialist, also believes in racial tolerance and racial blindness.

The Ku Klux Klan that was made up of Dixiecrat Democrats. The KKK had members of Congress including senators as well. There were also Dixiecrats in Congress who weren't affiliated with the KK K officially, but were ideologically in sync with the KKK, short of physically using violence against racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. And believed that African-Americans and other non-European-Americans weren't entitled to the same rights in America as Caucasians. But didn't believe in using terrorism to stamp out the civil rights movement.

Just because you're registered as a Democrat doesn't make you liberal, progressive, or left. Just because you're registered as a Republican, doesn't mean you're conservative, libertarian, or right. It just means you're registered with that party. Before the late 1970s or so you had right-wing Democrats (Dixiecrats) who represented perhaps as much 1/3 or more of the Democratic Party. Who I would argue at least weren't Center-Right Conservatives, but Far-Right Neo-Confederate Nationalists, who represent the Far-Right of the Republican Party today.

Senator Strom Thurmond who was a U.S. Senator from 1955-2003, one of the longest serving members of Congress in American history, was a Democrat up until the civil rights movement of the 1960s and switched to the Democratic Party in 1964. His politics and ideology didn't switch, just his political party. He was a Dixiecrat until he left the Democratic Party and then I guess you could call him a Dixie Republican when he became part of the GOP. But he was always a Neo-Confederate Nationalist who moderated his views on racial issues, but never supported the civil rights laws and was always a right-winger and even on the Far-Right in American politics.

Senator Jim Eastland, was also a Dixiecrat in his time in Congress in the 1950s, 60s, ands 70s and there were many many Dixiecrat Neo-Confederate Nationalist right-wing Democrats in the Democratic Party during this period, who now represent the Far-Right of the Republican Party today. As they would say, 'they didn't leave the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party left them."

As far as ANTIFA. They are obviously a radical leftist socialist and perhaps even communist movement in America with no right-wing or Republican leanings. But they don't seem to be associated with the Democratic Party either. Perhaps in some cases with the Far-Left of the party ideologically. But they are even to the left of Bernie Sanders who represents the modern Martin Luther King People's Party movement which is a peace loving movement that believes in economic equality through democratic socialist means.

ANTIFA- think by any means necessary to accomplish their objectives which includes violence and even terrorism targeted at Far-Right groups and individuals. Which they say they want to eliminate fascism. But where I could agree with Jeff Lord here is that they want to eliminate right-wing fascism like the KKK and broader Alt-Right. But would keep their form of fascism in place. Which is anyone on the right-wing or anyone who disagrees with them in general, doesn't have a right to speak in their view. Which is a classic form of fascism which is to eliminate opposing views and speech. Even if that means using violence and terrorism to accomplish those objectives. They're also anti-capitalist and would like to eliminate capitalism and perhaps even property rights. But right now they seem to be interested and eliminating the Far-Right in America. Again by any means necessary.
Source:The 100 Club