Slate Magazine: Karina Longworth: 'The Hollywood Ten: Paid The Price For Refusing to Answer The $64 Question'

Source:Slate Magazine- Herbert Biberman & Samuel Ornitz.

Source:The Daily Review 

"The hearings on what the House Un-American Activities Committee called “the communist infiltration of the motion-picture industry” began on Oct. 20, 1947. At the insistence of lawyers representing the 19 “unfriendly” witnesses brought before the committee, the proceedings took place in full view of the media. The friendly witnesses were called first.

Jack Warner of Warner Brothers took the stand, and the head of the studio most identified with the New Deal announced his conversion to anti-Communism. He noted the violent strikes at his studio the previous year, and declared that he was done making movies about the little man. He read a prepared statement in which he offered to donate to what he called a “pest removal fund” to root out “ideological termites” burrowing into American soil and have them shipped to Russia. Warner demurred when it came to naming names of certain subversives, but he did list the names of several writers who he claimed had “slanted” dialogue to match their own politics, including Alvah Bessie, Gordon Kahn, Howard E. Koch, Ring Lardner Jr., Dalton Trumbo, John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, and Robert Rossen." 

From Slate Magazine 

"The Hollywood Ten: A group of men in a 20th century witch hunt." 

Source:Samethyst- A Hollywood Ten cartoon (I'm guessing)

From Samethyst

I blog about political correctness and what I at least see as fascism on a regular basis. Perhaps one piece a week, because its such an important issue today with free speech coming under assault practically everywhere in America and even on college campus’ where free speech needs to be at it’s strongest so young people can learn and share views with each other and get as good of an education as possible.

But just like Caucasian-Americans don’t own a monopoly on racism and other forms of bigotry in America, the Far-Left doesn’t own a monopoly on political correctness and fascism. Back in the late 1940s and really through the 1950s Americans were under attack from the Far-Right in this country for simply believing what they believed and who they associated with.

It started in Congress in 1947 with the House of Representatives starting an investigation with their so-called Un-American Activities Committee doing an investigation about Communists in Hollywood. And sure there were Socialists in Hollywood and perhaps even Communists. But so what. They were also Americans who went to work everyday producing films and other entertainment that had nothing to do with the Cold War and certainly were not on the side of Russia and other Communists states back then. At least in the sense of propping them up and trying to make them look better than they actually were.

They were Hollywood employees. Actors, directors, producers, screenwriters, who simply went to work everyday producing a lot of good films that people wanted to see and paid a lot of money to see. Who ideologically were Socialists who backed Far-Left candidates and causes in America.

The Far-Right and right-wing version of political correctness which is a form of fascism is that people who don’t share their view of the world and what America should be and be about and don’t agree with them ideologically, are somehow Un-American. And not deserving of the same constitutional rights as other Americans.

There are people on the right-wing and especially Christian-Nationalist fascists on the Far-Right who have a 1940s and 50s Ozzie and Harriet view of America and who see Senator Joe McCarthy as a hero and even speak highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin today for his crackdowns on opposition media in Russia and homosexuality in Russia. And are now backing Donald Trump for president. People like Far-Right columnist and author Ann Coulter. Who is the real-life Donald Trump who actually believes what The Donald says. Even if Trump doesn’t believe his own propaganda.

In 1947 you had the House call members of the so-called Hollywood Ten to testify in front of the Un-American Activities Committee and asked what would normally be seen as an innocent question. “Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” The problem is they were asked to do this under oath and on live national TV. When broadcast news was still an infant.

The whole world (at least in America especially in Hollywood) listening to these House hearings with Hollywood executives and studio heads being anti-Communist and not able to afford to be associated with Communists or anyone else on the Far-Left in America. With these Hollywood employees having a choice to either plead the fifth and look very suspicious, or admit to being Socialists and risk not being able to work again ever in Hollywood. Even though most of them had kids to take care of and needed to work and earn a living.

The Hollywood Ten weren’t asked if they had committed any crimes or even knew any criminals. Or even associated with organize criminals and mobsters. They were put on trial for their political beliefs. They were considered guilty by association and communist political beliefs. Without any trial even though every American is guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to free speech and the constitutional right to believe whatever they want to.

Whatever you think of political correctness on many of our college campus’ right now that is done by private individuals. People getting together in trying to eliminate and censor ideas that they not only disagree with, but find offensive. What happened to the Hollywood Ten back in the 1940s and 1950s was a form of state-fascism. American citizens put on trial simply for their political views.

The Hill: Bill Press: Who's The Real Liberal- Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

Source:The Hill- left to right: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) & Hillary R. Clinton.

Source:The New Democrat

You want to talk about European social democracy and Far-Left socialist politics in America, or do you want to talk about Center-Left pragmatic progressive and liberal politics in America? If you want democratic socialism and social democracy, Bernie Sanders other than Representative Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008, hands down is the most socialist major party candidate for president ever. You can’t out socialist and socialist especially if you’re not a Socialist, which Hillary Clinton obviously isn’t. But if you want to talk about the American Center-Left which in Europe would the Center-Right and perhaps even further right like in Germany with the Free Liberal Democrats, Hillary Clinton hands down is the real and only Progressive and in the presidential race.

This is the danger with lumping in everything on the Left into one political faction and calling everybody the same thing. Communists aren’t Liberals and neither are Democratic Socialists. Liberals are people who believe in equal opportunity, rights and justice for all and individual freedom for all based on the liberal values I just mentioned. Not a big government big enough to manage people’s lives for them. Bernie Sanders and other Socialists go much further than that and say that individual freedom and rights are not enough. And believe in welfare rights based around a big centralized welfare state and that people have a right to essentially to not be poor and be taken care of with their money by government.

So of course Hillary Clinton is more progressive than Bernie Sanders, because she’s not a Socialist. The test to see who is more progressive than the other is not this inside the beltway game about whose the furthest left. But who has stronger progressive values. Who has a better record in seeing that those values become law and come into being. Not whose going to tax and spend the most, but whose going to accomplish the policy objectives that Progressives believe in. And again hands down and even though Hillary Clinton’s only service in Congress was her eight years in the Senate which is less than a third of Bernie’s time in Congress and Bernie is in his 26th year in Congress and served in the House before the Senate, Hillary has a better record of accomplishing progressive objectives. Which is why she has so many more endorsements from actual Progressive Democrats. Like from House Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn and I could go on.

Slate: Issac Chotiner- 'Nightmare Scenarios for the Supreme Court'

Source:Slate Magazine- "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at the U.S. Capitol, Dec. 15, 2015 in Washington, D.C." From Slate Magazine.

Source:The New Democrat 

"In light of the coming battle in the Senate over Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia, I called Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, an expert on the workings of Congress, and the co-author of It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How The American Constitutional System Collided With The New Politics of Extremism.

We discussed the future of the Supreme Court, the different types of obstructionism practiced by Republicans and Democrats, and the nightmare scenarios (another court packing!) that could be in our future. The conversation has been edited and condensed.

Isaac Chotiner: Is the Republican demand that the next president, rather than Obama, appoint a replacement for Scalia really that different from other forms of obstruction we have seen from both parties?" 

From Slate Magazine 

"President Obama responds to Senate Republicans' claims that there will be no confirmation hearings on his Supreme Court nominee. CNN's Michelle Kosinski reports." 

Source:CNN- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

From CNN

I would love to say I’m even surprised to see Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and Chairman Chuck Grassley and their flat-out obstructionism when to comes to filling Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. But I’m not, not even mildly so. I would be lying to the point that I was claiming I was Jesus, Moses and Karl Marx, all in the same person if I said I was surprised by the latest Congressional Republican obstructionism when it comes to President Obama’s appointments or when it comes to policy. I mean, it started in the early days of 111th Congress when Barack Obama just became President and then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gave a speech at I believe the Heritage Foundation and said his number one priority was to see that Barack Obama was a one term President.

But having said that lets get to the latest Congressional Republican obstructionism and again in the Senate where it started in 2009. And now it looks like the Republican Party is on a duel suicide trip with Donald Trump as their presumed presidential nominee and the Senate Republicans going into the spring and summer in a very hot and humid Washington (assuming this is a normal year) saying no to any Supreme Court nominee in 2016. Even if that person is one of their current colleagues in the Senate, or in their party like with Governor Brian Sandoval, who is a popular moderate Governor of Nevada. Who looks like a Bernie Sanders Far-Lefty compared with the Tea Party and the Far-Right in the GOP right now. But hardly any Liberal let alone a Bernie Sanders Socialist. Because the Senate GOP says that the President is a lame duck even though he has eleven months left on his current term.

I remember the 2012 presidential election. I voted and remember President Obama getting reelected overwhelmingly by five-million votes in the popular vote and roughly 320 votes in the Electoral College. I also remember my social studies classes in high school and remembering that the President of the United States serves four-year terms and no more than two. So this idea the President is a lame duck when he still has a year left on his second term just doesn’t hold. 

Imagine a baseball player singing a four-year contract and going into the spring training of his fourth year with his team and he says: "You know what, three years is enough. I’m not going to resign with you next year anyway. I’m just going to take the fourth year off. And oh by the way you have to pay me, because I signed a four-year contract." Even though the player is healthy. How would the general manager of the club react? He would probably tell the player: "You better show up and play, or you’re not going to get paid."

And as far as presidential Supreme Court appointments not getting voted on in an election year: Anthony Kennedy now Justice Kennedy was approved in 1988 by a Democratic Senate with a solid vote. Democratic Justice Thurgood Marshall was replaced by Republican Clarence Thomas in 1991. They were as far apart ideologically and had as little in common politically as country music fans have with hip-hop fans. And yet the Democratic Senate approved the Thomas appointment to replace Justice Marshall with a handful of Democratic Senators voting for Thomas. Which is what President Bush and the Senate Republican Leadership had to have to get Clarence Thomas through. There is no precedent for Senate Republican to sit on their asses for a year and not act on President Obama’s Supreme Court appointment. Which should be available by the early spring.

On a lighter note: imagine what the Republican Party in Washington looks like in lets say June and July. Donald Trump is their overwhelming nominee for president: the Joe McCarthy/Pat Buchanan of the Baby Boom Generation. A man claiming that Muslins don’t legally get Freedom of Religion protections and Mosques are not houses of worship. Who says he can deport eleven-million Latinos with the stroke of a pen. Who says Mexico will pay for the wall on the American-Mexican border. That women are property and that Americans don’t have right to speak out against him and I could go on, but it could get worst. And I don’t want to get stuck with someone future mental health bills, because they became depressed after reading this about The Donald. But it just gets worst, because now the GOP has The Donald and a Republican Senate sitting on their asses over a more than qualified Supreme Court nominee who got 90 plus votes to serve on the lower court.

If you’re familiar with Washington in the summer you know that it’s a hot humid place. Where we only get rain generally in between heat waves and our summers tend to start in May and go through September and sometimes even October. But with all the hot air that we simply get from Mother Nature, is a warm day at the North Pole compared with all the heat and humidity that comes from Congress alone. Especially in the Senate with the cloture rule where Senators at any time can speak until they have to go to the bathroom or fall asleep standing up. 

It’s going to be a hellish summer for the GOP and bad enough if all they have is an anti-civil liberties, anti-free speech, anti-immigrant and anti-Latino and Muslim fascist as their presidential nominee. How they deal with that plus with their twenty-four Senate seats that are up for reelection with perhaps as many as half of them in play and half of those favored to go to the Democrats. And they have to run with The Donald and try to defend in Democratic and swing states their leadership’s obstructionism over a clearly qualified Supreme Court nominee to their constituents. This will be a year to remember and forget for the GOP.

KQED: Gabe Meline- Kim Novak Opens Up: ‘I Think I’m Appreciated More Now’

Source:KQED- Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak, in Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo, from 1958.

Source:The Daily Review 

"There's a line spoken by Kim Novak in the Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece Vertigo that every devotee of the film knows by heart: “If I let you change me, will that do it? If I do what you tell me, will you love me?”

In reality, the plea was all too personal for Novak, the platinum blonde who during a string of hit films in the 1950s and '60s endured Hollywood's constant makeovers: to her hair, her clothes, her figure. She became, to critics and audiences, a sex symbol -- and little more." 

From KQED 

"XXII. Prague International Film Festival and ČSFD.cz presents interview with actress and artist Kim Novak." 

Source:AVC-CVUT- Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak, at the Prague International Film Festival.

From AVC-CVUT

This is a good interview from Gabe Meline of Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak and I mean that in the most positive sense. Yes, she was not just hot in Hollywood, but physically hot in general. Great body and yet so adorable at the same time that she generally came off as 10-15 years younger than she actually was, if not even younger than that.

But Kim was so real and convincing as an actress. I think that is what made her great and again as I said before had her career not have been over for the most part by the late 1960s and I think we’re talking about one of the greatest actress’s ever. Same class as Susan Hayward, Rita Hayworth, Lauren Bacall, Lana Turner, Liz Taylor and many others. She was really that great in the 1950s and 1960s.

If you watch the movie Vertigo with Alfred Hitchcock, Madeline is Kim Novak. Either as the Hollywood bomb shell blonde or as the red-hot Hollywood bomb shell. A woman who looks like a goddess on the outside. Whose 5’6 and hot with a great body, but also as cute as a baby with a sexy voice. But on the inside she was a like a sixteen year old girl who wants the hottest guy in high school, but not ready to make a move, because she doesn’t think she’s good enough for him. Or thinks he won’t like her at all.

As great as Kim was she always had this self-confidence issue that wasn’t that different from Marilyn Monroe, but she was smart enough not to get involved in drugs and abuse alcohol. Especially together which would the slow way to commit suicide.

Madeline from Vertigo, is Kim Novak. This gorgeous baby-faced blonde with the great body and the sexy Czech-Slavic curves. Who is never sure of herself and just wants someone to love her for who she is and just love her. Who is involved with a guy and his fantasy about who she should be. And she goes out-her-way to try to be that person for him.

If you like Alfred Hitchcock and you like Kim Novak, you’ll love Vertigo. The perfect Hitchcock movie with the hot sexy adorable blonde with a great suspense/thriller and humor all in the same movie. Like all great Hitchcock movies. And you see the real Kim Novak in it. As a goddess on the outside that every straight guy with eyes whose not blind should love, but who is very vulnerable on the inside. Even though she doesn’t has any real reason to be.

New America Weekly: Lara Burt: 'TANF &Teachers- How Current Policies Are Keeping Single Mothers Down & Out of School'

Source:New America Foundation- New mother & her baby.

Source: The New Democrat 

"Imagine a poor single mother today raising two children on her own and working at least 20 hours per week at a low-wage job without benefits. Then imagine that she must face the choice between remaining eligible for the restricted support she receives from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program or pursuing her aspirations for higher education.

The goal of the TANF program is ostensibly to help participants successfully transition to self-sufficiency. However, by placing barriers in the way of single mothers who wish to go to school through the program's strict “work first” policy, TANF undermines their ability to achieve this goal. As a result, poor parents in general and single mothers and their children in particular are suffering needlessly.

Roughly 40 percent of families headed by single-mothers are poor. In fact, these households are more likely than any other demographic group to fall below the poverty line. There are, of course, many factors that come together to make this unfortunate reality, but this disparity can be explained at least in part by a weak social-safety net, inadequate childcare, and lack of higher education opportunities." 

From The New America Foundation

It’s not that TANF (or the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families) hasn’t succeeded, because it has. Take away the Great Recession and we’re not looking at a twenty-percent poverty rate today, because under TANF low-income parents are able to go back to school and get skills so they can get good jobs. We were at around ten-percent poverty in the late 1990s. Economic booms only apply to people with good skills who are prepared and qualified for good jobs. And are even leaving unemployment, or moving up for a better job.

And of course opponents of the bill from people on the Libertarian-Right who believe that government should do nothing to help people in poverty, to people on the Social Democratic-Left, who believe that self-reliance shouldn’t be the goal here and want bigger government cash payments instead, will say that the 1990s economic boom was the reason for the low poverty. But low-income adults especially need to have good skills in order to have good jobs.

TANF, was a great 1990s Welfare to Work and anti-poverty program. I believe the best government anti-poverty program ever created, because it encourages work and education over government dependence. And again without the two recessions of the 2000s TANF would have worked very well again, because President Bush supported it and even had Democratic support for it in Congress. 

What we need now is a Welfare to Work program that builds off of TANF. And says if you’re on Welfare, you’re going to work as soon as possible and that means taking at least one of the first jobs that you’re qualified for. But while these folks are going to work, they're able to keep all of their public assistance, including their Welfare checks up to the point that they can support themselves on their own and no longer need public assistance at all to support themselves and their families.Which is what's known as subsidized employment which encourages work over being homebody.

In exchange government will help you finish and further your education. As well as childcare assistance for your kids. So low-income low-skilled single-parents, have the time and the money to get a good education and to work. But not only will these new workers be going back to school as they’re entering the workforce, but they’ll continue to collect their public assistance benefits that they’re eligible for as low-income workers. Medicaid, Public Housing, Food Assistance, and even Welfare, etc.

So we should be investing more and going further with TANF, perhaps better known as Welfare to Work. Which would be a great investment in our low-income communities, but a great investment in our economy. Because we would be moving people off of public assistance all together with all the new educated workers we would be producing. And create a larger middle class and a smaller poverty class. Creating purchasing power for millions of new Americans. Money they would spend and invest in the economy. Money they could put back in their communities instead of abandoning them.

Welfare to Work, shouldn’t be about Welfare to fast food, or retail, or janitorial work, or other low-income, low-skilled jobs that don’t come with benefits after these new workers lose their childcare assistance and everything else they were getting from public assistance. But instead Welfare to the middle class and economic freedom. Which only comes through quality education and economic development.

Los Angeles Times: Patrick Kevin Day- Kim Novak- Hollywood Star Walk

Source:Los Angeles Times- Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak I believe from Pushover (1954) film.

Source:The Daily Review

When I think of pure beauty, grace, class, realism, adorableness, Kim Novak is not the only actress I think of, but she’s certainly one of my favorites. I don’t know of another actress who was that hot, baby-faced adorable and that well-built and that real. A hot 5’6 women with a great body and whose also baby-faced adorable, who played all of her roles as if she’s playing herself. If you judge an actress by how real and believable their character is, meaning do the you believe the actress playing the women or not, that alone would make Kim Novak not just one of the best actress’s of her generation that includes Angie Dickinson, Sophia Loren, Dyan Cannon, Liz Taylor and many others, Grace Kelly, but one of the best actress’s of all-time.

And I believe what makes Kim even better is that the women that she played most of the time tended to be very different from who she is in real-life. Kim, was somewhat shy and lacking in self-confidence and never quite sure of herself. Which was perfect for her in Vertigo where she plays Madeline who is very similar in personality. But look at The Man With The Golden Arm with Frank Sinatra and she’s playing the cool always sure of herself character. Whose trying to save a drug addict and gambler played by Sinatra, from himself. Which is my point about Kim that she was so good at playing her characters even people who were very different from herself. But played them so well as if she was playing herself.

I’m not saying Kim Novak is Lauren Bacall, or Liz Taylor, Rita Hayworth, Susan Hayward, but probably in the next group, or the one right after that if not the second one. Because she sort of burned out by the late 1960s and attempted a few comebacks after that without achieving the great roles that she use to have. Had she still been doing well in Hollywood in the 1970s and 1980s, maybe we’re talking about an actress who belongs in the first group of greatest actress’s of all-time. But for her time in the 1950s through the mid 1960s she was one of the best and best looking in Hollywood. And landed a lot of great movies and roles because of that. And someone who clearly belongs in the Hollywood Hall of Fame, or the equivalent of that.

The Washington Post: Ishaan Tharoor- 'U.S. Democrats Are Embracing The Term Liberal'

Source:The Washington Post- "Supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wait for his arrival in downtown on Tuesday in Concord, N.H." From The Washington Post

Source:The New Democrat 

"According to a new Pew poll, more Democratic voters are identifying with the label "liberal," marking a discernible upward trend.

"In 2015, more Democratic voters identified as liberals (42%) than as moderates (38%) or conservatives (17%)," reported the Pew Research Center. White Democrats, millennials and those with postgraduate degrees in particular characterized their political views as "liberal." You can see the steady growth of self-declared liberals within Democratic ranks in this chart below." 

From The Washington Post

Thanks to the mainstream media and what a lot of Americans have been taught growing up, the words liberals and liberalism have been associated with left and leftism. And of course a lot of leftists in America (democratic and otherwise) are closeted Socialists because thanks to the Cold War, Socialists and Communists were treated like rapists or terrorists. And no decent American who cared about their professional reputations, want to be associated with Socialist or Communist when it came to their political philosophy. So they self-described their politics as liberal or progressive. 

What the rest of the developed world calls Socialists or Social Democrats, Americans tend to call those folks Liberals. I think that's changing now as more Americans especially younger Americans are now learning about liberalism and liberal democracy, as well as socialism and social democracy and realizing that those two political philosophies are actually very different from each other. 

According to the mainstream definition or pop culture definition of Liberal, Liberals are supposed to be antiestablishment, defenders of the supposed oppress (meaning women and minorities) and always wanting more government and more taxes. 

The supposed view of a big governmentalist is someone who believes in more government, or a liberal amount of government, meaning a lot of government. And it's the job of government take care of people and protect people, even at times for themselves. That the more government you have, the more people will taken care and the less that they'll have to do for themselves.  

But if you actually want to know what liberalism actually is what Liberals actually believe not just in America, but in Europe as well where Liberals are considered center-right and liberalism is considered to be a center-right political philosophy: 

"Liberal democracy, also referred to as Western democracy, is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under a democratic form of government. It is characterized by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified (such as in the United States)" 

From Wikipedia 

But to go to today's politics someone like Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) who is the only self-described Socialist in the U.S. Congress (but not the only Socialist in Congress) Senator Sanders self-describes his own politics as a Democratic Socialist as someone who believes in democratic socialism or social democracy, a European Center-Left Democrat, ideologically. 

Senator Sanders does this because he's one of the few Americans who actually knows that socialism and liberalism aren't the same things. But according to the mainstream media in America, Senator Sanders is the most liberal member of Congress, because he seems to believe in the most government and highest taxes. 

If you want a quick definition of Liberal, I'll give you one anyway: a Liberal believes in individual liberty. Liberals are defenders of liberty, not supporters of big government, because Liberals believe in liberal democracy, not socialism. Which is why Liberals are considered Center-Right in Europe and should have the classification in America as well.