Politics & Prose: Dr. Eric Motley & Elaine Pagels: 'Why Religion'

Source:Politcis & Prose- Eric Motley and Elaine Pagels at Politcis and Prose, in Washington .

"Elaine Pagels discusses her book, "Why Religion?", at Politics and Prose on 11/30/18.

When Pagels, author of groundbreaking studies of the Gnostic Gospels, was asked, “Why religion?" she found that her own life illuminates both why she’s made a career of studying religious texts as well as why religion itself still exists in the supposedly secular 21st-century. The daughter and wife of scientists, Pagels was taught to trust the rational, but she found herself attracted to religious music and rituals for how they engaged the imagination. After the loss of her five-year-old son in 1987, followed by her husband’s death in an accident in 1988, Pagels turned to religion for help in facing her grief and anger. Interweaving the fascinating scholarship behind books such The Origin of Satan and Revelations with her own experiences, Pagels’s memoir is as emotionally affecting as it is thought-provoking.

Pagels is in conversation with Dr. Eric Motley, executive vice president at the Aspen Institute and author of the memoir Madison Park."

From Politics and Prose

As someone who is Agnostic and proud of it who believes in reason, science, facts, and only has faith in people, things, institutions that I trust based on the evidence that I've seen from being around them and talking to them, I can actually see why people would be attracted in religion. 

As someone who believes in the First Amendment which includes the Freedom of Religion in America, ( sorry Hippies, I'm not spiritualist and I'm not a Communist either ) I can see why people would want religion, be involved in America, and even need it. I guess this is difference between an Agnostic and an Atheist, especially a fundamentalist Atheist. (And yes, there is such a thing) 

This is not an official definition, but that might only be because there isn't any official definition of religion, but my personal definition of religion is basically basic set of moral values that people believe and follow, as well as the belief in God. Now, depending on what religion you are a member of determines what moral values that you believe in and follow that helps you in your life. 

I can easily see how people can get positive benefits from being a part of a religion and get positive benefits from attending church and listening to their religious leader every week give a sermon, especially when they're going through rough times and need help getting through those tough times. Even though religion is not for me and I prefer to use evidence and reason to get through those tough times in our lives. 

Elaine Pagels, lost both her son and husband in the span of a year back in 1987-88, apparently wasn't very religious before those tragedies in her life, but found religion after that and I can understand someone who goes through those tragedies especially in such a short period of time would feel the need to get help from religion and learn about that and try to figure out for themselves why they're being put through those tragedies one following by another.

Religion, has been used by alcoholics to get over their alcoholism. It's been used to help career criminals who are doing long-term prison sentences get their life going on a positive track so once they're finally out of prison they can become positive members of their community once they're free. As much as I might hate religious fundamentalism in all forms, ( and trust me, I do ) people should also understand and beware of the positive aspects of religious life as well. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

Claudia Christian: On Making It In Hollywood

Source:Quote Parrot- A very candid Claudia Christian.

"What was your favorite Claudia Christian quote? 'Like' and leave a comment below, then jump over to:Quote Tank and make a list of your favorites, so you'll never forget!"

Source:Quote Tank- Life is worth working for 

From Quote Tank

Not all actors and actresses, but a lot of them and apparently Claudia Christian is a perfect example of this, but before they become stars they have bills to pay and have to support themselves. Especially if they already have kids and their spouse isn't rich yet either. Just because you haven't heard of a certain actor because become stars later in their careers, doesn't mean they just suddenly appear out of nowhere or were sent down form Planet Venus or some other planet to become a star in Hollywood.

A lot of actors before they became stars were already veteran actors and actresses. Dennis Haysbert, who played the President on 24, is a perfect example of that. He was already in his mid 40s when he got that role, but had already had big acting credits like appearing in Heat in 1995. George Clooney, was 33 when he became a star on ER, but had already been acting and supporting himself for 10 years before that.

And because all actors and actresses have to work to support themselves even if they're not stars yet, they have to go where the money is and where they can get roles. Even if that means doing movies that a few years down the line after they've already made it look ridiculous to them.

Thomas Howell, who became a star in the movie The Outsiders, has a laundry list of b-movies on his resume, because those were the only parts he could get. Acting on Impulse, from 1993 which is actually a pretty good movie, but almost no one has ever heard of it.

So actors and actresses have to keep working at least until they become stars and have some financial security. 30 years ago or so almost ten years before he got the part on ER and was still on The Facts of Life, George Clooney was in a movie called something like The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Flies. If you haven't heard of that movie, you're on a long waisting list of people who want to get into an overcrowded club of people who've also have never heard of that movie. But these are the roles that let's say developing actors and actresses and prices that these people will pay to become a star in Hollywood and never have to worry about getting work again and be able to get quality roles in movies and on TV.

As far as Claudia Christian's career: she's been acting since 1984, but didn't didn't get the Babylon Five role until 1996 which made her a star in Hollywood. She made guest appearances on A-Team back in the mid 80s, appeared on the soap opera Dallas during that period, The Hidden in 1987, The Chase in 1994, which were al great roles for her, but also on that same resume before Babylon, Maniac Cop 2, Hexed, and a lot of other b if not c-movies that almost no one has even heard of, but kept her busy and working in Hollywood and gave major directors and producers a chance to see her so when a great part came around for her they would know about her and she would be ready for it.

B-movies and b-roles are the prices that people pay to make it in Hollywood and Claudia Christian is just one example of that.

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger. 

Susan Hayward: The Working Girl

Source:AZ Quotes- Susan Hayward, on reaching the mountaintop of Hollywood. 

""What was your favorite Susan Hayward quote? 'Like' and leave a comment below, then jump over to Quote Tank and make a list of your favorites, so you'll never forget!"

Source:Quote Tank- One pf Susan Hayward's movies 

From Quote Tank

There are a lot of rags to riches success stories in America which is one thing that makes America great as well as exceptional. America tends to get stereotyped as a rich country that's dominated by rich people who control so much of the country's wealth and that all Americans are rich. And if you're from a third world country and grew up poor before you came to America, you might believe that as well at least before you get to America.

But the fact is most Americans aren't wealthy. Most of us aren't poor either, but a lot of come from either middle class or working class families which is the overwhelming majority of Americans. Americans who aren't poor or who are hungry, but struggle to survive, work hard, to pay their bills. Can't afford to send their kids to college which means their kids have to work through college or get student loans, or both especially if they're not on scholarship.

Susan Hayward growing up in New York City in the 1920s and 30s didn't even have it that great. She came literally from nothing where her parents couldn't afford to feed all of their kids at the same time. Sometimes couldn't afford to even do laundry, couldn't replace shoes and other clothing that were falling apart. What Susan Hayward did have going for her growing up and as a very young woman was that she hated poverty and wanted to escape it. As well as a talent and desire to succeed that would allow to her live well for the rest of her life.

When I think of Susan Hayward, I think of President Richard Nixon and his background growing in rural and poor California in the 1920s when a lot of America was actually doing very well economically, but where most of that economic wealth was in big cities like Boston, New York, Chicago, and other big cities not in rural California hundreds of miles out of Los Angeles.

I think of President Nixon giving his farewell address where he says: "Only when you've been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain." President Richard Nixon from August, 1974 the day he left the White House after resigning the presidency, because of is involvement in the Watergate coverup.

Susan Hayward, was able to reach the mountaintop in Hollywood and to go down as not just one of the greatest actresses in her generation, but who ever worked in Hollywood because she grew up in the deepest valley in America. And to know what it was like to live on the bottom not knowing where your next meal was coming from and would you even have a home the next month.

Not that I would recommend poverty to anyone, but when you have nothing is does teach you a few positive things like how important hard work and success are and what it means to earn what you get. As well as always knowing at least in the back of your head what it's like to be poor and to know that you never want to live that way again.

Susan Hayward, is a great rags to riches story who came from nothing to become one of the best actresses that America have ever known and a story that we should all celebrate.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

Vanity Fair: 'How NYC's Richest Socialites Were Scammed By Anna Delvey'

Source:Vanity Fair- Great question! 

“Anna Delvey finagled her way into the world of New York City’s elite class with seamless ease. That is, until it all came falling apart.”

Source:The Cut- Anna Delvey.

From Vanity Fair

Source:The Cut- Anna Delvey on the right and a friend?

If you’re familiar with The Billionaire Boys Club that was lead by Joe Hunt in the early and mid 1980s that was based on Los Angeles, the Anna Delvey story should sound familiar. Except that Anna Delvey was not an investor not even a fake investor like the BBC and Delvey hasn’t murdered and spending the rest of her life in prison.

What’s she’s apparently guilty of is scamming rich New Yorkers out of their money. Looks like she was supporting herself by just hanging out and partying with rich New Yorkers. With not a real job or income of her own.

What she does have in common with Joe Hunt and the BBC is this need to be seen with what’s known as the beautiful people. Very attractive, sexy successful, hip yuppies in New York who have the best of everything when it comes to material. The best looking and most expensive clothing, best homes, cars, go to the best restaurants, hang out and party with the most popular people, as is she’s part of this crowd and his also a very successful yuppie in New York as well.

When the fact the only thing she has in common with these people is a need to be seen living this lifestyle with these people. But someone on her own would struggle to pay for gas in her car and pay for a motel room at the Motel Six or some other place. Perhaps Bob’s Motel and Diner in New Brunswick, New Jersey or whatever the location.

The main problem that Ann Delvey had is that she had first class expensive taste, but with an income that couldn’t even pay for a coach seat. The way she paid for her first class lifestyle was by convincing some I guess some seriously gullible New Yorkers that she was also very successful and wealthy on her own. Perhaps these people believe in Santa Clause as well and not sure about who murdered President John Kennedy.

You would think people for their educational and professional backgrounds, would be smart enough to not get fooled by someone like this. And just see her as a wannabe celebrity party girl, groupie ( to use another term ) and just blow her off, but that didn’t happen here. 

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

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Ann-Margret (1978)

Source:The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- Swedish and Hollywood Goddess Ann-Margret, on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson in 1978.

"JOHNNY CARSON INTERVIEW ANN MARGRET Jun 16 1978"

From Missy Logo

Just to talk about Ann-Margret, she was so adorable and that really includes everything about her, but in this case especially it was her voice that caught my attention. She has this very sweet soft voice that reminds me a lot of Elizabeth Taylor as far as how she speaks to people. Which I'm sure was driving Johnny Carson crazy ( at least inside ) with him thinking something like she's too cute to also be this sexy. But that is Ann-Margret who is this very sweet, adorable, soft, and yet sexy and gorgeous woman. Very similar to Raquel Welch or Rita Hayworth from a previous era.

As far as The Cheap Detective, it could've been called The Cheap Movie as well. Not a great movie, but with a great cast including Ann-Margret, but Louise Fletcher, Stockard Channing, ( talking about beautiful, adorable women ) Peter Falk who is the star of the movie and someone who if anything might have been even funnier than Johnny Carson, even though they would've made a great contest. It's a pretty funny movie similar to Columbo as far as the humor and funny people in it, but this is not one of Humphrey Bogart's great film noir humorous movies, but more like play on those movies.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

Fred Flix: 'Old Commercials That Would Be Politically Incorrect Today'

Source:Fred Flix- Funny Face, LOL! 

“There was nothing wrong with these TV ads at the time. But they wouldn’t air in these “Oh, wait, I’m offended” days.”

From Fred Flix

The flat tire commercial where it's automatically assumed that the woman can't change a tire, certainly wouldn't play today. Back in 1955 or the ( the Utopia for the Christian-Right ) it was consider unfeminine for women to be involved in any form for physical work that's traditionally done by men. And since gays were still living in the closet including lesbians, gay masculine women weren't even around at least in public, so no woman back then was expected to do physical manly work. ( To make a politically incorrect joke ) So no changing the flat tires on the cars, or fixing appliances, home improvement, working on cars, construction work, nothing that would be considered manly. Women were expected to stay away from all of those activities in America.

Source: Jonathan East- Not for people who hate free speech 

The commercial with the beautiful sexy women that looks like it came out in the late 1970s just from the color picture and how the hair and everything else looked, as a straight man I don't have any problems with that commercial. I could see why radical feminists would have a problem with it because they would view it as sexual exploitation. Taking advantage of women's sex appeal and beauty. But they probably see professional cheerleader squads as sexist as well even though none of these women are expected to participate in any of these activities. I could see why a commercial like that wouldn't play in San Francisco or New York or Boston, but don't know why it would be a problem anywhere else in the country.

Source: EBay- Taking a stand for free speech 

The cigarette and tobacco commercials, are not politically incorrect in anyway, because they're simply not offensive to anyone. The problems that they have with especially chewing tobacco is that tobacco and even tobacco cigarets are so unpopular today because so many Americans at least now know what tobacco does to you and the health risks that come from it. Tobacco unlike alcohol which is still very popular is becoming taboo in America. Even smokers won't smoke in their homes anymore especially if they have kids or if their spouse doesn't like tobacco. But back in let's say 1975 or whenever that commercial came out practically every American was smoking. You almost had to back in the 1970s to be considered cool or groovy, far out, hip, whatever the hip term was then.

The  commercial with the office secretary, kind of looks sexist to me, but in a funny way. Apparently the woman in the commercial is looking for a lunch date with her boss ( of all people ) and believes she can get that simply by wearing the right perfume or deodorant. Sort of implying that she's trying to move up in the company by being nice to her boss. If that commercial came out 10-15 years later or was part of a sitcom from let's say 1975-79 or even later, the commercial would've implied that the woman was trying to sleep her way to the top. I would see even as a hard core supporter for free speech who believes in almost no limits on it why that commercial could be seen as sexist.

We just live in a very different world now as we did in 1955. In some ways free speech and personal freedom is even more popular now where women aren't expected to stay home  and where couples aren't expected to get married before they move in together or have sex, or even have kids together. But in other ways even though our constitutional right to free speech is just as strong as it was 60-65 years ago, it's become less popular with young people. Who believe anyone who isn't a straight, male, Christian, Caucasian, has some artificial right not to be offended. Which of course is obviously not true, but you wouldn't know that from our current pop culture and even political culture. One of the reasons why Donald Trump is President of the United States, because you have millions of Americans probably tens of millions who are fed up with political correctness. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

Politics & Prose: Jonathan Martin Interviewing Denis Leary: 'Why We Don't Suck'

Source:Politics & Prose- comedian and author Denis Leary at Politics and Prose, in Washington.

"Are you a "Right Wing Nutjob" or a "Left Wing Snowflake?" Either way, in this third volume of a series that includes Why We Suck and Suck on This, Leary wants to enlist you in his campaign to Make America Laugh Again. Proving that satire can be non-partisan, Leary, creator and star of the FX comedy series Sex&Drugs&Rock&Roll, takes aim at both sides of the aisle, along with their media sounding boards, CNN (the Clinton News Network) and Fox’s Fair and Balanced Republican Report. With equal doses of sarcasm and common sense, he pokes fun at all we hold dear, from Twitter and Instagram to gluten-free diets and our endless thirst for fame. This is social criticism at its sharpest and funniest. Leary will be in conversation with Jonathan Allen, national political reporter with NBC News."

From Politics & Prose

I haven't read Denis Leary's book so I can't get you any real analysis of it whatsoever. But I was alive, conscience, and in America, for the entire time in 2016. Except when I wasn't sleeping, which is any longer than the average American sleeps. And I can tell you about Suck Bowl 2016 (which is what I call the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton presidential election) and why it was the worst presidential election we've ever seen.

I voted for Hillary Clinton for president and would do again million straight times, if her opponent is Donald Trump or anyone else who is as unqualified to even be a back benching member of the House of Representatives, let alone President of the United States. Or is as immature, thin skinned, unread, lacking in intelligence, knowledge, and curiosity about how the U.S. Government works, narcissistic, dishonest, as a Donald Trump or anyone else with those same characteristics. That are the only reasons why I voted for her.

Not because I'm a fan of Hillary Clinton. I basically see her as a well-meaning, intelligent person, who wants to do a good job. And if it wasn't for this Thanksgiving grocery shopping list of reasons why I don't like her, I could vote for her because I believe in her and believe she would do a great job. 

In Hillary Clinton, we're talking about a major presidential nominee who has been thinking about being President of the United States, at least since she was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2001, and yet didn't seem to have any vision of why she should be President and what her campaign was about. Other than that she's a well-educated, rich yuppie New Yorker, who is also a feminist and a Democrat. Which is why the rich cool people should vote for her. And that she's also a woman and would be the worst female President of the United States. Well, most of the rich cool people did vote for Hillary and she still lost states that no Democrat has lost since 1988. Pennsylvania and Michigan.

So you have the baggage of Hillary Clinton. Well, some of the baggage. How about her lack of candor  and genuineness and ability to make a statement that doesn't sound like it was poll tested or that some who works for her told her to say. Which killed her in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, probably Florida as well, states where she was heavily favored going in. 

What those voters saw in Donald Trump was at least someone who seems to say what he thinks, at least at the time. Even if he changes his position five minutes later after hearing what Breitbart or some other Far-Right publication or organization thinks about it. But Trump came off as real and says what's on his mind. Instead of someone who seems to say whatever the polls are telling him are popular at the time.

This is why I call the 2016 presidential election Suck Bowl 2016. Perhaps the two worst presidential candidates you could imagine running against each other. One, who might be a good public servant, but who is a horrible politician at least in the sense that she lacks any ability to communicate a vision for the country and what her presidency would be like and why people should vote for her. 

Hillary running against a natural politician, at least in the sense of someone who can bring voters behind him and be able to speak to them. But who is a horrible public servant simply because he doesn't believe in public service. His idea of service is serving himself. And some people are still wondering why Americans at least say they hate American politics and don't like American politicians. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

The Independent Institute: P.J. O'Rourke- 'The Outlook: How Things Look From Here'

Source:The Independent Institute- Conservative political humorist P.J. O'Rourke.

"Bestselling author and political humorist P. J. O’Rourke presentation at the 30th Anniversary Gala for the Future of Liberty held on September 22, 2017 in San Francisco, CA.

P.J. O’Rourke, a Founding Member of the Independent Institute’s Board of Advisors, is America’s leading political humorist and the best-selling author of 16 books on subjects as diverse as politics and cars and etiquette and economics. After graduating from Miami University of Ohio and attending the graduate program at Johns Hopkins University, O’Rourke began his career of skewering both the left and the right on the ends of his razor-sharp one-liners."

Source:The Independent Institute

What Socialists don't like about Libertarians and libertarianism, is that Libertarians have this inane idea (according to Socialists) that people should be allowed to make a good living and then be able to live off of those rewards. The fruits of their labor. (To sound like a cheeseball)

What the Christian-Right and now Christian-Nationalists (who voted for Donald Trump) don't like about Libertarians and libertarianism is that Libertarians have this crazy idea (according to the Christian-Right) that people have property rights and that extends to their homes and their bodies. And that people should be able to live their own lives as they see fit, short of hurting innocent people. Even if that offends the religious and moral values of the Christian-Right.

What I don't like about the Libertarian-Right, well there are a few things and I guess I could name them all, but they claim to be against big government and government interference and yet they tend to sound more like they're anti-government all together. That they see America as some deserted island where there's almost no evidence of life and all of these people show up all the sudden and over the years and create a new society short of having any government.

The so-called Anarcho-Libertarians, seem to believe that arresting suspects as part of a criminal investigation, is somehow a form of kidnapping. That if someone wrongs you it's up to that person to get justice for themselves. Instead of relying on a law enforcement department to handle that for you. Because if we have public law enforcement and government, that would require taxes to fund those agencies. That putting convicted murderers (to use as an example) who are actually guilty of murdering the people they were convicted for, that putting them in prison for their crimes, somehow violated the murderer's rights. Someone who believes that comes from another planet and perhaps is just on Earth for a visit. Perhaps to see what the real world looks like.

Conservative-Libertarians like the Barry Goldwater's from back in the day, Senator Rand Paul and a few others in Congress today, P.J. O'Rourke, those Libertarians I can respect, because they're not Anarchists, but Libertarians. They want a government limited to only doing for the people what we can't do for ourselves. And not messing around in other countries affairs. And also they sound like sane intelligent people who base their politics from this crazy word called reason. And not sounding like escaped mental patients, who've been on nothing but marijuana and alcohol, since they fled from the institution.

And I could also talk about how conspiratorial Libertarians tend to be and how they resemble the Socialist-Left in America and how dovish they are and blaming Lyndon Johnson for the JFK assassination. Libertarians are supposed to hate Socialists and socialism, and yet they sleep in the same bed at the same time with Socialists when arguing about all of these conspiracy theories. Like the JFK assassination, but arguing that 9/11 was an inside job and I could go on. Just look at Alex Jones website if you want more.

Or the antisemitism and even racism that Libertarians have expressed against non-Europeans in America and how now a faction of the Libertarian-Right is now part of the Alt-Right. The Stefan Molyneaux's and others who claim to be Libertarians, but have argued that immigration is somehow a threat to the European-American culture. As well as some Libertarians arguing at least in the past and again something they have in common with the Socialist-Left in America and people like socialist author and writer Noam Chomsky, that America is largest terrorist state in the world and perhaps the only international terrorist organization in the world.

As a Liberal I'm all about (to use a cliche from the 2000s) getting and keeping big government out of my wallets and bedroom. The whole notion of being an adult (who is not currently incarcerated) is that you get to make your own personal and economic decisions, but then have to deal with the consequences of our actions. We don't need a national, or even state, or local, religious leader or nanny statist, babysitting free adults.

So again, I respect the Rand Paul's Jeff Flake's, Ron Johnson's, Justin Amash's, and others in Congress. These are all Republicans (by the way) in the Senate and House. But the Alt-Right that is part of the Libertarian-Right and the anarcho wing of the Libertarian-Right, they can sound just as crazy as the Socialist-Left. Perhaps as if they did time with them in an institution. And when the crazies become the faces of your movement, your movement loses credibility and the ability to be taken seriously in American politics. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

A&E: Naomi Ekperigin- Infamous Killers: David Berkowitz- The Son of Sam

Source: A&E- Serial murderer David Berkowitz. 

"Discover the story of David Berkowitz's adoption, "Son of Sam" crime spree, and come-to-Jesus moment.

David Berkowitz, known as Son of Sam, murdered six people in New York City from 1976 to 1977, claiming he received orders from a demon-possessed dog. He is one of the most notorious serial killers in America. Learn more: Biography"

From A&E

I doubt I'm the only person who has done this but for the last 10-20 years or so but I've been wondering why a somewhat normal seeming man like David Berkowitz would decide to go out and simply murder people in New York City or anywhere else. Not to look for justification for those murders and of course there are no justifiable murders. Murder by definition- the intentional taking of innocent human life by definition is a crime. The worst crime you could commit against anyone. Calling a murder justifiable would be like calling a cheeseburger a hot dog, a slice of pizza a peanut butter sandwich. Its simply not believable on its face.

But I've been wanting to know why would a somewhat innocent looking and normal intelligent man who had a good job and was able to support himself even if he was somewhat lonely and isolated, why would this person go out and decide to murder as many 10-20 innocent people and perhaps more. What would drive a normal productive man to go out and murder all of those innocent people for no apparent reason and why after being found sane and able to stand trial for his murders how would a serial murderer like David Berkowitz (the self-proclaim Son of Sam) avoid the death penalty. The death penalty is for people who murder multiple people and get some pleasure from that.

Again, this doesn't justify what David Berkowitz did and I' not anti-military or even anti-war, but David Berkowitz joined the U.S. Army right after high school in the early 1970s and discovered early on that he was very good with guns. He wasn't even in the Vietnam War but instead was sent to South Korea to join the forces there that was protecting the South from Communist North Korea. I believe Berkowitz discovered that he was good with guns and good at shooting people and perhaps even discovered that he enjoyed doing it. He gets an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army in 1974 and comes back to New York City where he grew up in the 1950s and 1960s and discovers that he's alone and doesn't fit in where he grew up.

What the Son of Sam means to me and I'm obviously not David Berkowitz's biographer, is that he saw himself as the Son of Uncle Sam. This mythical character that is supposed to represent the U.S. Government and generally what most people believe and I'm one of them, represents what big government looks like in America. Americans who hate high taxes and over centralization of government, the War on Drugs, invasion of privacy, to use as examples. Not to say that Berkowitz hates big government, but I believe he saw it as his duty and was trained to murder people on the behalf of Uncle Sam as what he called himself The Son of Sam. Which is my little theory of why David Berkowitz did what he did.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Vanity Fair: David Friend- Monica Lewinsky: 'Opens Up About The Year That Changed Politics & Her Life Forever'

Source: Vanity Fair- Former Clinton White House intern and President Bill Clinton's girlfriend, Monica Lewinsky.

"In a series of candid conversations, two decades after she was introduced to the world by Matt Drudge, Lewinsky recalls how 1990s culture, hardball politics, and the fledgling World Wide Web forever altered her life—and American political history. This piece has been adapted from The Naughty Nineties, published by Twelve."

From Vanity Fair

"In 1998, says Monica Lewinsky, “I was Patient Zero of losing a personal reputation on a global scale almost instantaneously.” Today, the kind of online public shaming she went through has become a constant. In a brave talk, she takes a look at our “culture of humiliation,” in which online shame equals dollar signs — and demands a different way."

Source:TED- Monica Lewinski, speaking to TED.

From TED

Looking back at it now twenty years later (think about that for a second) the difference between the 1960s especially the early 1960s with President John F. Kennedy and the 1990s with President William J. Clinton, has to do with the internet age and media culture. The personal scandals that Bill Clinton was involved both real and fake in the 1980s and 1990s, aren't that different in seriousness from the real scandals that President John Kennedy was involved with in the early 1960s.

President Clinton, had a short-term affair with a White House intern. President Kennedy, had affairs with mob girlfriends, women who were still involved with their mobster boyfriends and would then tell those men about their involvement with President Kennedy. Judith Campbell was one of President Kennedy's White House girlfriends. She was Italian mobster's Sam Giacana's girlfriend as well. Bill Clinton while as Governor of Arkansas in the 1970s and 1980s, had an extra marital affair with former model and now writer Gennifer Flowers. Jack Kennedy when he was Senator Kennedy in the 1950s and after he married his wife Jackie, had multiple affairs with multiple women, which continued while he was President in the early 1960s.

So what's the difference between the affairs that Jack Kennedy had in the 1960s and the affairs that Governor and later President Bill Clinton had in the 1980s and 1990s? Only one difference really which is the media.

If you wanted to watch TV back in lets say 1963, you had three channels to choose from. In some big markets maybe there would be an independent station that wasn't affiliated with CBS, NBC, or ABC. PBS didn't even come around until the late 1960s. Forget about satellite, there wasn't even cable. You wanted to read a newspaper of magazine, you had to subscribe to one and it would be mailed to you physically, not electronically and you would probably get it once a week. Same thing with a newspaper but it would be sent to you everyday. Or I guess you could actually leave the cocoon of your house and get some fresh air and go down to your local convenient store and pick up a magazine or newspaper.

You could also get news on the radio and have serval choices there. Cable TV and satellite, didn't come around until the mid 1970s. And probably wasn't universal until the mid or late 1980s. The internet, what the hell is that back in 1963. That didn't come around until the early 1990s and wasn't mainstream until 1995. Smartphones unless you include Blackberrys, have only been around since 2007.

My point here is (and yes I have a point) is the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton affair of the mid and late 1990s, was not new at least as far as how serious it was. Yes, both people especially President Bill Clinton who is old enough to be Monica's father and of course was married, but then the fact that he's President of the United States having a White House affair with a 20 somethingWhite House intern, showed horrible judgment here and have been paying a price for it ever since. The difference being is that we knew about everything that Bill Clinton was involved with by late 1991 and certainly into 1992 and for his whole presidency, because of new technology and the information age.

No longer just network news, radio, and the newspapers. Not just 24 hour news networks, but online publications (that we call blogs today) Americans simply having the ability to find out everything that they wanted to find out whenever they wanted to by only having a laptop or desktop, or a smartphone. As well as a new media culture that instead is run by lets gets the truth before we put it out, even if that takes longer, is now about having to get something out there before their competitors do, or it will cost them money. Especially ratings and advertising. Not sure that attitude has dominated network news as much as cable news and online publications, but others probably know that better than me.

Not saying the Clinton-Lewinsky affair wasn't serious and shouldn't have been paid attention to. How serious it was and what should've been the consequences for it, are really up to the people involved especially the people who were directly hurt by it. Most notably Bill Clinton't wife and daughter. And to a certain extent President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky herself. Not by some religious cult thats from the 1950s and got caught in some Star Trek time warp and suddenly finding themselves living in the 1990s and deciding that since they're now in the 90s that they're going to not only bring their lifestyle and culture with them, but try to force every other American to live like them. And of course I'm referring to the Clinton haters that Hillary Clinton correctly labeled the vast right-wing conspiracy.

My point is what happened between Bill and Monica, is not much more serious and consequential if at all to the political and sexual affairs of the 1960s. What made Bill and Monica and different is the time and technology in which their affair happened.

Bob Daugherty: Mysteries & Scandals- The Blacklist & The Hollywood 10

Source:Bob Daugherty- Victor Navasky, publisher of The Nation. Speaking of Socialists: check out that publication.

“Hollywood 10 Ten Blacklist from Mysteries and Scandals”

Source:Bob Daugherty

Looking back at it The Hollywood Blacklist and The Hollywood 10 and the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee which was as Un-American as anything they were investigating and perhaps the most Un-American committee we've ever seen in Congress, looking back at The Hollywood Blacklist and The Hollywood 10 and the investigations that they were under simply for their ideological beliefs.

Because they were not just Socialists and some of them were simply Socialists and not Communists, but there were also Communists in this community. But they weren't being investigated for being American traitors working for Communist Russia. They were investigated for being Communists, for having communist beliefs. This was the most extreme form of political correctness that we've seen in this country, at least in the 20th Century, because this wasn't just people getting shouted down because they have what might be extreme political views, or just having political views that offend some political activist community that actually might not be extreme.

Which is today's version of political correctness that the Far-Left (talk about Communists and Socialists) uses to try to shut up and censor right-wingers who they disagree with. But this is government-sponsored state-run political correctness. That says your (meaning Communists and Socialists) First Amendment rights aren't as strong as people on the Right and Far-Right, simply because you're Communists and Socialists.

If they were the KKK, Neo-Nazis, fundamentalist theocratic Christians who believe women's place is in the home and it should even be illegal for them to work, or gays should be in jail and prison simply for being homosexual, well the argument from the fascist Far-Right would be there that they're just expressing their First Amendment rights to free speech.

But if you're a Socialist or Communist who believes in state-run health care and health insurance, having a state-run banking and even energy, but aren't active politically in the sense that you're running for office, or even campaigning for any Far-Left political candidates or politicians,  or have any affiliations with Communists states, well you're Un-American according to the fascist Far-Right. Who had this Leave it to Beaver 1940s and 1950s view of what it means to be a real American. Sort of the like 1940s version of the modern Tea Party today.

To put it plainly, political correctness really sucks. The only thing that was Un-American during these supposed investigations of Socialists and Communists in Hollywood, was the House Un-American Activities Committee itself. We have guaranteed free speech rights in America which means you can be on the Far-Left and believe in democratic socialism or even communism and believe that right-wing and perhaps even Center-Left political parties shouldn't even have the right to exist.

Or you can be on the Far-Right and be a Far-Right Nationalist-Tribalist who believes your culture and faction in the country including ethnicity and race are the true Americans and the only people who will standup for America. And see everyone else as threats to your state and therefor aren't deserving of the same constitutional rights as your culture and political faction. Or you can be religious theocrat who puts your religious beliefs over everything else including the U.S. Constitution and are so fundamentalist and have so much faith in your religious beliefs that you believe everything else should not only live under your cultural values, but be forced to live under them in some religious theocracy.

Just as long as the Far-Left and Far-Right aren't violently acting on their beliefs even in an attempt to defeat or eliminate the opposition in order to accomplish their political beliefs. We have a right to free speech and belief, but not a constitutional right to violence short of self-defense. Americans have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to be stupid and even be assholes. Just as long as we're not violent assholes and physically trying to hurt people simply because we disagree with them or even hate them. Our guaranteed right to free speech and beliefs the ability for every American to think for themselves is as American as anything we've ever had in this country and still have.

What's Un-American are not political beliefs whatever they are, but trying to censor those views simply because you disapprove of them or are even offended by them. If Socialists and Communists want to hold political rallies attacking America with their rhetoric and call America the real evil empire in the world and argue that we're some materialistic racist corporate state, because we allow wealth and don't expect government to manage our daily lives for us, they have the guaranteed right to make those arguments and even publish articles, book, produce documentaries. Even if their nothing but great fiction, at best.

If the KKK, Neo-Nazis, want to argue that America is going to hell because of our non-European immigration in the country and that non-European-Americans are Un-American, they have can hold peaceful political rallies, publish articles and books, produce documentaries, making those arguments. And be treated by the public with the public's free speech rights as the complete assholes that they are.

There's nothing dangerous about free speech short of people telling others that certain people should be physically harmed, or have their property attacked, be falsely libeled and accused. What's dangerous is trying to eliminate speech and thought in America simply because you disapprove of what the speaker is thinking and saying. Because the same thing can happen to you by the opposition when they don't like your politics. The American way to confront speech and politics that you disagree with is to peacefully speak out and organize against it. Make the case as far as why the opposition is wrong. Publish articles, books, produce videos, documentaries, with the best available information that you can get about why the opposition is wrong. Which is as American our great diversity and melting pot that represents the entire world that we all call America.

Politics and Prose: Glenn Frankel- High Noon: 'The Hollywood Blacklist & The Making of a Classic'

Source:Politics & Prose- Author Glen Frankel, at Politics and Prose in Washington, talking about his book High Noon.

"One of the most revered movies of Hollywood's golden era. Starring screen legend Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly in her first significant film role, High Noon was shot on a lean budget over just thirty-two days but achieved instant box-office and critical success. It won four Academy Awards in 1953, including a best actor win for Cooper. And it became a cultural touchstone, often cited by politicians as a favorite film, celebrating moral fortitude.

Yet what has been often overlooked is that High Noon was made during the height of the Hollywood blacklist, a time of political inquisition and personal betrayal. In the middle of the film shoot, screenwriter Carl Foreman was forced to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities about his former membership in the Communist Party. Refusing to name names, he was eventually blacklisted and fled the United States. (His co-authored screenplay for another classic, The Bridge on the River Kwai, went uncredited in 1957.) Examined in light of Foreman's testimony, High Noon's emphasis on courage and loyalty takes on deeper meaning and importance.

In this book, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Frankel tells the story of the making of a great American Western, exploring how Carl Foreman's concept of High Noon evolved from idea to first draft to final script, taking on allegorical weight. Both the classic film and its turbulent political times emerge newly illuminated.

Founded by Carla Cohen and Barbara Meade in 1984, Politics and Prose Bookstore is Washington, D.C.'s premier independent bookstore and cultural hub, a gathering place for people interested in reading and discussing books. Politics and  Prose offers superior service, unusual book choices, and a haven for book lovers in the store and online. Visit them on the web at Politics and Prose."

From Politics and Prose

I don't have much to offer about the movie High Noon, as least the original one from 1952. I did however see a movie with the same title from the Lifetime Network (of all places) in I believe 2009. But that is not what this piece is about. (Thank God!) Not a good movie and not trying to cure anyone's insomnia by talking about the second High Noon movie. Not a good movie and not even very believable.

What I'm knowledgeable about and have read about and seen some documentaries about, is The Hollywood Blacklist from the 1940s and 1950s. Where workers out in the Hollywood industry who actually were Socialists and in some cases even Communists and even supported Communist Russia back then (known as the Soviet Union) but weren't criminals and didn't even have official relationships with the Soviet Government in Russia.

The Hollywood Far-Left was simply on trial for their far-left political beliefs by crooked politicians in Congress who were simply trying to take advantage of the Red Scare and the start of the Cold War between America and Europe, against Russia and their allies in the East.

Hollywood professionals like writer Dalton Trumbo which there was a good movie made about him that came out in 2015 simply called Trumbo, were hauled in front of Congress at the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee simply because of their political beliefs. Not for any laws that they might have broken. But because they were Socialists and Communists who didn't like the American liberal democratic form of government and instead wanted a socialist or communist state to replace our liberal democratic, federal, form of government.

The House Un-American Activities Committee, was exactly that which was Un-American. The idea that people could be hauled in front of Congress at first in the House and then later in the early 1950s to the Senate Investigation Committee chaired by Senator Joe McCarthy simply because of their politics and political beliefs and not for anything that they even may have done, is simply Un-American.

So what if Dalton Trumbo was not just on the Far-Left in America, but was also a Communist! He was never going to have any political power in America, nor did he ever want any. And the Communist Party was never going to have any political power in America simply because they're Communists and are illiberal. And oppose most of the liberal democratic values that most Americans love, like free speech and free elections, property rights, right to privacy, just to name a few.

Whether you're a Communist on the furthest Left in American political or a Christian-Theocrat or Nationalistic-Tribalist on the furthest right in American politics, you have a right to believe what you believe. And express your beliefs in public and try to make the case for what you believe in public. Which is as American as our melting pot and individualism. Which is what the so-called Red Scare of the 1940s and 1950s which is what this nationalistic anti-communist movement opposed and tried to eliminate from American life. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Vanity Fair: Rich Cohen- 'Why Generation X Might Be Our Last, Best Hope'

Source: Vanity Fair- A look at Generation X.

"Demographics are destiny. We grew up in the world and mind of the baby-boomers simply because there were so many of them. They were the biggest, easiest, most free-spending market the planet had ever known. What they wanted filled the shelves and what fills the shelves is our history. They wanted to dance so we had rock ‘n’ roll. They wanted to open their minds so we had LSD. They did not want to go to war so that was it for the draft. We will grow old in the world and mind of the millennials because there are even more of them. Because they don’t know what they want, the culture will be scrambled and the screens a never-ending scroll. They are not literally the children of the baby-boomers but might as well be—because here you have two vast generations, linking arms over our heads, akin in the certainty that what they want they will have, and that what they have is right and good."

From Vanity Affair

"Birth of the Slacker | Generation X. In 1987, as the stock market crashes, the slacker stereotype is born. National Geographic

Source:National Geographic- NBC News Anchor Jane Pauley

From National Geographic

To talk about Generation X (my generation born in 1975) it depends on how you define it. To put it simply we're the generation that is now in our forties and fifties. The middle adult generation between the Boomers and the Millennial's. Officially Baby Boomers are Americans born between 1946-64. So after World War II and during the civi rights movement of the mid 1960s. And I'm sure the U.S. Census Bureau does a lot of things very well, but defining generations is not really one of them. And as most Americans (who aren't a Socialist) know government can get things wrong in this country.

Another way to look at Generation X are the people who went to school and grew up in post-segregated America. If you want to know why so many Americans are both color and race blind is because so many of us (Gen-Xers) went to public schools that were racially and ethnically diverse. So we went to school before we knew what race and ethnicity was. And got to see people as they were as people and not just how they looked. Why they had a certain complexion, why there hair looked a certain way, why they had certain names. Things that come with one's ethnicity and race.

Which is why affirmative action has been losing support with my generation and in America broadly, because a lot of us now simply don't judge Americans by their race or ethnicity and therefor don't believe people should be rewarded or punished simply because of their race or ethnicity. I believe the more accurate way to define Generation X is Americans born between 1960 or 61 and 1979. And I believe a lot of Americans born in the early 1960s would agree with this since they have plenty in common as far as their own personal experiences with Americans born in the mid and late 1960s and even early 1970s, is Americans born between 1960 or 61, and 1979. Than they do with Boomer Americans born in the 1940s and 1950s and even in some cases late 1950s.

So everyone born in 1979 would be the last of the Gen-Xers. Which is what I'll be talking about in this piece is Americans born in the 1960s and 1970s that are right between the two largest generations in at least modern American history. The Baby Boomers born in the 1940s and 1950s that are the parents of most Gen-Xers. And the Millennial's born in the 1980s and 1990s who are the children of some Gen-Xers and a lot of Boomers.  Even if you stretch out Generation X to let's say 1961 or even 1960 to 1979, we're still a small generation. Like North Korea surrounded by China and Russia.

Because a lot of Boomers especially men were vacationing in Vietnam in the 1960s (ha, ha) and the the economy was so depressing in the 1970s that a lot of Boomers weren't having kids. They were too busy crying about the Vietnam War and the fact they couldn't find a job, or at least a good job. But that is really for a different topic as far as why my generation is so damn small and we have to look up to the Boomers and Millennial's as far as numbers.

The main reason why I still have some hope for America even with the oversensitive Millennial's who can't take a joke and want to outlaw everything they disagree with and view celebrity culture and new technology as need to know information and current affairs and public policy back page and unimportant, because it requires thinking and intelligence to understand, and history as so old school and yesterday and therefor not worth learning about and being interested in, is because what I laid out early in this article. Gen-Xers are the first post-segregation generation.

If you're a Boomer or older chances are you went to a segregated school, especially if you grew up in the South or even rural small towns in the North. And therefor didn't get to or have to socialize and learn with kids of different racial or ethnic backgrounds as yourself, until you probably graduated high school. And then maybe even in college you didn't go to school with people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds. Unless you were an African-American who is in college on let's say a scholarship. That is not a problem that most Gen-Xers had and the same thing for the Millennial's.

So Gen-Xers have got to experience America at it's best and what we're supposed to be as this great vast liberal democracy where everyone can succeed if they're simply just given the opportunity to and then take advantage of those opportunities. Regardless of their ethnicity, race, or gender. And we've gotten to learn about America at it's worst and to some extent experience racial and ethnic bigotry ourselves, especially racial and ethnic minorities, but in most cases not to the same extent as our parents and grandparents.

We know what works about America which is our ability to be individuals and at the same time celebrate what we all share and love about America. Which is the ability for us to be ourselves and not have to fall in line and be some big collection of Americans that all think, talk and act alike. And we know what doesn't which is denying Americans opportunity and access simply because of their racial or ethnic backgrounds, or their gender. And trying to lump groups of Americans into one group and think they must all think, talk, and act a certain way, because of the group that they're a member of.

Another reason why I have hope for America is Generation X in most cases are the sons and daughters of the Baby Boomers. We've learned from them about individuality and learned from the so-called Me Generation and that Americans are better off being themselves and taking care of themselves. That we're only as useful and can help others when we're doing well ourselves. Which is why I believe Gen-X is an educated generation and successful generation.

We've gotten ourselves the tools to do well in America and then have passed our wealth and knowledge down to others and have become a large volunteering generation. And enjoy volunteering for others and helping people out, because we've made it in America in most cases. And aren't drowning in student debt (unlike another generation) and are able to take care of ourselves for the most part. (Unlike another generation)

The last reason why I believe America still has hope and will still be a great country 20 years from now when I'm in my early 60s (knock on wood) is because Generation X is the middle generation. We're in our 40s and 50s and just had our first President in Barack Obama. (Born in 1961) We're going to be around and in charge for a long time. And because of that will have the ability to lead and teach others what we've know and have experienced.

And hopefully the Millennial's will grow up and learn that just because they don't like a joke or criticism, doesn't necessarily make that joke and criticism bigoted.

Hopefully Millennial's will learn that just because they don't approve of this activity or another like what people eat and drink like soft drinks and junk food, or meat because they view eating meat as animal cruelty, doesn't mean those things are so bad that government should prohibit them.

Hopefully Millennial's will learn that just because celebrity culture and new technology or are so like totally awesome or whatever, that maybe those things really aren't as important as how government is spending our tax dollars, or are we going to be at war, or are our civil rights, civil liberties, and constitutional rights, are now in jeopardy, because of some big government action or actions.

These are the reasons why I still have hope for America and my Generation X is a big part of that.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

Lloyd Laney: Susan Hayward 1998 Biography

Source: Lloyd Laney

Source: Lloyd Laney: Susan Hayward 1998 Biography

I believe what made Susan Hayward such a great actress was how real she was which allowed to her seem like she wasn't acting. She almost had this "I have nothing to lose attitude so I might as well do things my way." Which I guess is understandable because of how she grew up and was raised. Coming from an immigrant community in a very poor part of New York. And was taught very young or perhaps just learned herself that if she's going to accomplish anything in life because of how she's starting out she's going to have to earn everything and work very hard. Because nothing will be given to her.

Sort of reminds me of how Richard Nixon started out in life coming from a very poor part of Southern California and yet he is elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in his early thirties and the U.S. Senate just two years later, Vice President of the United States by 39 and never had to worry about money the rest of his life. People appreciate things more in life when they earn them because they know what it's like not to have much and don't want to go back there. Which I believe is what kept Susan going for as long as she was able to and literally becoming not just one of the best actresses of her generation, but ever.

Not to get too political especially in piece about Classic Hollywood but Susan Hayward represents exactly what American exceptionalism is. That no matter your race, ethnicity, gender, how you were raised and the income level of your parents, if you have real talent, skills, and a strong work-ethic, you'll make it in America. Susan Hayward's lack of a start in life and having nothing to start off with and her father never making enough money for his family to live well and they always being in poverty, only made Susan work harder and be able to accomplish more on her own. Because she hated poverty so much that we was going to work as hard and be as successful as she possibly can.

Susan was finally able to finally enjoy life instead of worrying about will she have enough food to eat that day or will she homeless and other things that most Americans who don't live in poverty take for granted everyday. I believe Susan's upbringing and how real and honest she was contributed to her being the great actress that she was. Because she knew too well what poverty and going without was like and when she was acting it was like she wasn't acting or pretending at all, because of how real she was.

I believe Susan Hayward was one of the first great dramatic comedic actresses. And what I mean by that is not someone who can do both drama and comedy well someone like a Sally Field today who is still one of the funniest people in Hollywood and has still has great comedic timing, but who is also a very good if not great dramatic actress. But Susan was someone who brought comedy to her dramatic roles and could combine both genres into one role and be dramatic and funny at the same time. The movie I'll Cry Tomorrow where she plays a great but alcoholic actress, is an excellent example of that. Where she was cracking wisecracks with the perfect timing as she was playing a drunk with a really bad case of alcoholism.

Susan was so real as an actress and had a knack for playing women who were struggling and did that so well, because she wasn't playing. She knew exactly what it was like to struggle in life and would take those parts and literally turn into the women she was playing, because she knew exactly what it was like to struggle in life. Which is what I believe made her a great actress. Which I believe is also what lead to Susan's downfall and why she dies in 1975 in her late fifties because everything in life was such a struggle for her and she didn't take enough time to actually enjoy what she accomplished in life.

Mysteries and Scandals: Susan Hayward

Source:Tanya Randy- a man who was interviewed for this documentary.

“Susan Hayward (June 30, 1917 – March 14, 1975) was an American actress. Hayward was born Edythe Marrenner in Brooklyn, the youngest of three children .

Susan Hayward (June 30, 1917 – March 14, 1975) was an American actress. Hayward was born Edythe Marrenner in Brooklyn, the youngest of three children .

To contribute to Closed Caption please use this link and thank you!

A.J. Benza says Get out the kleenex folks, this ones a real tear jerker (unfortunately for poor Judy). Holliday began her show business career in 1938 as part of .”

From Tanya Randy 

“Gloria played the flirty ‘girl about town’ in the movie Oklahoma but mostly appeared in NOIR movies. VERY VERSATILE! Gloria and Rita Hayworth are my . This is for Cole Hurley* Capucine.”

Gloria played the flirty ‘girl about town’ in the movie Oklahoma but mostly appeared in NOIR movies. VERY VERSATILE! Gloria and Rita Hayworth are my . Joaquin Smithey farkıyla sunulmuştur..”

Source:Suzy Reinhardt- Hollywood Goddess Susan Hayward.

From Suzy Reinhardt 

This photo is from the 2000 Mysteries and Scandals documentary of Hollywood Babydoll Susan Hayward. But the video that this photo is from is no longer available online.

Source:Suzy Reinhardt- Myteries and Scandals Susan Hayward.

When I think of Susan Hayward I think of great dramatic comedy actresses who are real-life drama queens. Similar to Ava Gardner, women who had a tendency to play parts that were close to home.

Susan Hayward had a habit of playing women who were going through really tough experiences and were even scorned and somehow make it through those experiences until they’re hit so hard at the end which is what finally brings them down.

Susan Hayward played alcoholics, Susan was an alcoholic. Susan played women who were depressed and consumed a lot of sleeping pills and other medication just to try to get through life. Susan consumed a lot of sleeping pills and antidepressants.

I believe what made Susan such a great actress and again very similar to Ava Gardner is she played women who were a lot like her. Very beautiful, really adorable, quick witted, very intelligent, and very honest.

As one of the men in this video said there was no bull or baloney with Susan Hayward. And I would have used much stronger language than that. You knew where you stood with her and how she was feeling all the tine. And again we’re talking about one of the best actresses ever, so could have easily hided her feelings if she wanted to and played pretend and fooled a lot of people. But again what made her such a great actress was that she was so real. And you always knew what she was going though, how she felt, and how she felt about you.

If you’re looking for good Susan Hayward movies to check out this weekend or in the future, I could give you several, but if you’re really interested in Susan Hayward herself and what she went through in life, then I have a few movies that will give you a great idea of why she was a great actress.

I Want To Live, where she plays a death row inmate the true story of Barbara Graham. Barbara was also a woman who went through horrible experiences in life and had some real bad men in her life and ended becoming a criminal herself. Whether she was actually guilty of the murder she was convicted of in the end is a different story.

Where Love Has Gone from 1964 which I believe was made based on the life of Lana Turner and how her boyfriend ends up dying in that relationship because her daughter ends up killing him. Susan plays a woman in Where Love Has Gone who has an abusive boyfriend or at least a man with a bad temper and goes off one night and Susan’s daughter comes in and shoots the man.

I’ll Cry Tomorrow where Susan plays a starlet who drinks too much and is overly medicated. Again very similar to the life that Susan lived herself.

Imagine how much more dramatic real-life would be if we had a lot more Susan Hayward’s in and out of Hollywood. Imagine what life would be like if you always knew where you stood with people. You would really know if someone liked you or disliked you. You would really know if someone loved you or hated you. If you were doing a good job or about to get fired. But at least you would know where you stood in life and how you stood with other people and be able to make the necessary adjustments or continue to do what’s working before something bad happened to you or you went off course.

That is the life that Susan played in the characters that she played and the life she lived. Which makes her very unique in Hollywood where everything is generally about appearances and make believe and where Hollywood imitates real-life too much and people outside of Hollywood are more interested in appearances instead of reality.

You can also see this post on WordPress.