Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (1957) Starring Tony Randall & Jayne Mansfield

Source:The New Democrat

Jayne Mansfield plays Rita Marlowe in Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter and I believe and have heard that Marlowe was one of the names that Jayne considered changing her last name to after arriving in Hollywood. But instead settled for Mansfield the last name of her first ex-husband. But anyway Rita Marlowe is a star actress and Hollywood goddess who goes to New York, because she wants to improve her image. New York is the advertising capital at least of America, so not a better city to choose from.

Tony Randall plays Rock Hunter a talented and semi-successful advertiser, who hasn’t hit it big yet in the business. The firm he works for is looking for a big account that would bring them a lot of money and future clients. Rock is looking for the that one big account that would jumpstart his career and take him to the top. It turns out that Rita and Rock are perfect for each other, because they both have what the other needs. Rita would be that account that would Rock’s firm needs. And Rock has what Rita needs which is an intelligent successful professional man who would make her look good.

That is what Rock Hunter is really about. Rita and Rock make a deal with each other and do favors for each other. Rita endorses products that Rock is trying to promote for his firm like perfume. Rock pretends to be Rita’s boyfriend and appear in public with her as a couple so she can be taken more seriously in Hollywood. This movie is also about people believing that they are obligated to be things that they don’t want to be and instead find ways to do things that they want to do instead.

This is not a great movie, but it is a very funny movie with a good message. That people don’t have to be the way that others be they should be and work in professions that others believe they should. That people can be themselves and do what makes them happy. And have to worry about their image so much. Tony Randall as usual in this movie is very funny and the same thing with Jayne Mansfield. Who is her usual adorable baby girl funny self, with all her funny and adorable mannerisms.

The Alfred Hitchcock Hour: Hangover (1962) Tony Randall & Jayne Mansfield

Source:Alfred Hitchcock- Hollywood Babydoll Jayne Mansfield on The Alfred Hitchcock Hour in 1962.

Source:The New Democrat

A chance to see Jayne Mansfield with short hair. Don’t worry, she’s still baby-face adorable and hot with short hair. Tony Randall plays a talented, but alcoholic advertiser who’s drinking has gone too far to the point that it costs him his job, which is a very good job and his wife. And as well as his memory where he doesn’t remember the night before. Where he gets kicked out of a bar, screws up his presentation at work for one of his clients and wife walks out on him. He also forgets about an affair he had with Marion played by Jayne Mansfield.

He actually shows up at work the next morning thinking everything is normal and that nothing incredible happened the night before. He doesn’t even remember being fired and is wondering what Marion is doing at his home the next morning. He shows up to work locked out of his office where they tell him again that he was fired. And essentially spends the rest of the day trying to figure out what happened the day before.

As Alfred Hitchcock said on this show himself, this was about showing people the dangers of alcoholism, which I’m even surprised that term was even around in the early 1960s. And would assume that people who were alcoholics were considered to be mentally weak and not people with disease that needed serious treatment. But alcoholism causes Hadley Purvis played by Tony Randall his job and his wife and he loses his temper and takes it out on Marion.

Keith Hughes: Cuba Explained: Ending the Embargo

Source:The New Democrat  

I’m not saying ending the Cuban trade embargo unconditionally is a good idea and sure as hell hope that is not what President Obama did. I’m in favor of ending the embargo conditionally. That any American trade and business that goes into Cuba goes to the Cuban economy and the Cuban people. That the Cuban Government doesn’t tax most of it away, or all of it way to boost up their communist regime. But as long as Cubans see, feel and get the benefits of American trade in their country and have all the access to Cuban resources like hotels and everything else as American tourists, than this is something we should definitely be doing.

Cuba is not a threat in any way to America. Economically, militarily in no way whatsoever. If anything Venezuela is a bigger threat to America than Cuba, because they have a larger military, more economic resources, better ties to other authoritarian regimes who don’t like America and everything else and yet we trade with Venezuela. We are the only at least developed country in the Western world that doesn’t trade with Cuba and that only hurts the American economy and American business’s. Cuba gets that economic activity back and then some from Europe, South America and Asia.

Cuba is moving in a better if not positive direction now under Raul Castro now the President of the Communist State. They have opened up their economy to private enterprise and they now have Cuban business people who work or own for private business’s and other companies. They’ve also lessened restrictions as it relates to personal freedom and allowing Cubans to have more access of their own country. You don’t open up countries by ignoring them. We are seeing that with China and saw that with Russia when they were under Soviet control. You open up countries through engagement and encouraging the people in those countries to take control of their own country.

David Lindholm: The Girl Can't Help it (1956) Starring Tom Ewell & Jayne Mansfield

Source:The New Democrat

If you are familiar with Jayne Mansfield in real-life and you are familiar with this movie, you know that Jayne essentially plays herself in this movie. Except for one key factor, Jayne plays a women who doesn’t want to be a star, an entertainer in this movie. The real Jaynes Mansfield only wanted to be a star and move to Hollywood and make it big in the entertainment business as an actress, singer and perhaps even comedian, she could do it all. At least when she was sober, but in this movie she plays someone who essentially just wants to be a good housewife to the man she loves and take care of their children.

Her boyfriend played by Edmund O’Brien has completely different ideas for Jerri Jordan played by Jayne Mansfield. He plays an entertainment mogul who has produced big hits in the past and made a lot of money, but hasn’t produced one lately and is sort of looking for a big comeback. Fats Murdoch played by O’Brien, also has other business connections, including being involved in organized crime and has even done time in prison. Which is one of the reasons why his career in the entertainment business is in, shall we say recession where he hasn’t been active lately.

Murdoch wants to marry Jerri, but the problem is she isn’t known yet and is worried that marrying someone who is unknown and perhaps seen as a nobody could hurt his image. He knows that she is physically a goddess, a hot baby-face and perhaps even baby girl voiced goddess, with an incredible body is a star in waiting and just needs someone to lead her in the right direction and to get noticed. That is where Tom Miller comes in played by Tom Ewell, whose career is also in a bit of a slump. But who is a talented agent and scout who has made entertainers stars in the past, but hasn’t done anything lately.

Murdoch hires Miller to make Jerri Jordan a star. To show her around town and to get people in the entertainment business to see and know her and to lead her to people who can get her in the entertainment business and start a career for herself. The problem is Jerri doesn’t want to be a star and Miller knows that, but also knows that his gangster boss Murdoch won’t be satisfied with that. Miller is scared of Murdoch and doesn’t want to be cut out or eliminated, but doesn’t want to force Jerri to do something that she doesn’t want to do. Murdoch also has other gangsters after him that want him killed. And Miller and Murdoch help each other with each other’s problems.

The Girl Can’t Help it is certainly not a great movie. Very funny, at times sure and pretty entertaining, but Jayne Mansfield like in real-life is so overwhelmingly adorable, hot and sexy in this movie, that she makes the movie worth watching on her own. She’s also very funny in this movie like she is in most of her movies and Edmund O’Brien and Tom Ewell are very good and funny in this movie as well. This movie also features Julie London, who plays one of Miller’s former clients who became a big star, but dumped him after they get involved. So this is a pretty good movie and Jerry Jordan helps Miller get over Julie London who plays herself in the movie.

Keith Hughes: What is a Liberal?

Source:The New Democrat  

Keith Hughes explained what is a Liberal in basically the first minute of this video and he even said that we all are a Liberal at least in some way. Because we all believe in liberty, equality, freedom, the ability to live our own lives. Those are the things that Liberals believe in and why I’m a Liberal and what liberalism is actually about. And if you want to call me a Classical Liberal, fine but I’m a Liberal because that is what Liberals believe in.

But if you listen to the stereotypes of what Liberals are and what liberalism is about, whether it comes from hyper-partisan right-wingers, the media and people on the Far-Left who have the balls to call themselves Liberals, you would think that liberalism is a democratic form of statism, or just statism in general, but under a different name. That the job of government is not to make sure that everyone can live in freedom, but that everyone is taken care of. That the job of government is to take care of people and even protect them from themselves, both from an economic and personal perspective.

The stereotypes of today’s Liberals is that we are essentially statists and perhaps even Neo-Communists. That individual freedom shouldn’t be the goal, but that what we want is a society where everyone is take care of. Where no one is poor and where no one is too rich, especially when others are struggling. Where no one is able to, or is making bad decisions with their own lives that society as a whole has to pay for.

So a statist today if they are democrats, are essentially Socialists or Social Democrats when it comes to economic policy. A huge welfare state mixed in with private enterprise to finance a welfare state, but are paternalists when it comes to personal issues as well. So people don’t make mistakes with their own lives that again society as a whole has to pay for. That it is the job of government to take care of people both from an economic and personal point of view.

I mention these things, because that is what so many Americans tend to believe when they think of Liberals and liberalism. People who statists essentially, both welfare statists when it comes to the economy and nanny statists when it comes to personal issues. But that is the opposite of what Liberals are and what liberalism is about. Liberals aren’t anti-state, meaning anti-government. We are anti-big government, we don’t want big government running our lives for us. Just to do what we can’t for ourselves as individuals, or can’t do as well.

Liberals believe in freedom and equality and that basically means freedom for everyone. Not that everyone has the same income and material wealth, but that everyone has good opportunities to live in freedom. So Liberals believe in safety net to help people who don’t have the skills to live in freedom because they lack the education needed, to use as an example. But with that public assistance we don’t want government simply taking care of people, which is what Socialists tend to believe in. We want government to help people help themselves so they can live in freedom as well. Things like education, job training and job placement for the less-fortunate.

The idea of a Liberal Utopia is not socialistic where everyone is completely equal, where big government has all the resources it needs to take care of everyone. The Liberal Utopia would be a place where everyone has the freedom to take care of themselves. Because everyone is well-educated and has the skills to take care of themselves and the freedom to live their own lives as long as they aren’t hurting any innocent people. And are living up to the consequences and responsibilities of their own freedom and decision-making.

Foreign Affairs: Matthias Matthijs & Daniel R. Kelemen: 'Reforms That Will Save The EU From Irrelevance'

Source:Foreign Affairs- The flag of the European Union. And perhaps one day the flag of a Federal Europe.

Source:The New Democrat

"In 1982, The Economist marked the 25th anniversary of the European Economic Community, the precursor to the European Union, by featuring a tombstone dedicated to the organization on its cover. “Born March 25, 1957. Moribund March 25, 1982,” it read. Then came an epitaph courtesy of the ancient Roman historian Tacitus: Capax imperii nisi imperasset, “It seemed capable of being a power, until it tried to be one.” Inside, the magazine pilloried the community for its institutional weakness, bemoaned its citizens’ growing disenchantment with European integration, and warned of a possible British exit.
"

From Foreign Affairs

"Speech by Guy Verhofstadt [ ALDE MEP / Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe / European Parliament ] on :
Debate on the future of the European Union - Statement by Jyrki Katainen, Prime Minister of Finland (debate)"

Source:Alde Adle- Guy Verhofstadt, at the European Parliament.

From Alde Adle

I’m not suggesting that in the short-term the European Union go from essentially a regional United Nations, even though it’s a lot more effective and run a lot better and I would argue a lot more important and perhaps the most important international player in the Western world outside of the United States and the United Kingdom, to a Federal Republic and state. Even though long-term I believe that would be in Europe’s best interest would be as one federal state in Western Europe. Going from Belgium and Portugal in the West over to Poland and Italy in the East, with every other state in between.

The European Union as a Federal Republic would be a superpower economically, militarily, diplomatically and everything else. And the economies in Europe would be much better off as part as this one huge market of three-hundred and fifty-million people or so. Instead of one mid-size market of forty or sixty-million or so, or even smaller depending on the country. But short-term for the EU to be stronger and more relevant, they need to be a little more centralized as far as the Commission and Parliament being in the same European capital and being part of the same organization under the EU.

As well as the EU should be more democratic with a real executive branch lets say that comes under the President of the European Union. Who would be elected by European Union voters. Voters in each EU state, instead of the EU rotating the presidency every few years or so. The people in these states would elect the EU President. And Commission would come under the President, with the President having their own Commission and appointing essentially cabinet members to the Commission, that would need to be approved by the Parliament. Whether the Parliament is bicameral or unicameral.

These reforms would make the EU more relevant and more effective, because the EU under the President and their commission would be able to act and act effectively dealing with issues that effect Europe and have a Parliament. Organizations like a united European Defense Force, that could eventually replace NATO and be a major partner of the Britain, Canada and America would be able to respond to either attacks inside of the EU, or attacks nearby like human rights and military crisis’ nearby, like in Africa or in Arabia like with what we saw in Libya in 2011 or in Syria today.

The United Nations is essentially a joke and not much more than a debating society. But especially if you compare the UN with the EU and that is not what you want the EU to become a place where nothing is essentially done other than debating and critical issues are never addressed. Which is what we saw with Russia in their invasion of Ukraine and with Syria as well. A united EU whether it is a federal state or not with a strong Commission under a President and a strong Parliament, would be able to address these issues in a timely and effective way. Because now you wouldn’t need all the EU members to agree on anything before anything is done.

Corey Cantor: Comparing The Economic Records of The Last Two Democratic and Republican Presidents

Source:The New Democrat 

Facts can only sound partisan when they clearly lean in favor of one party or the other. But there’s nothing partisan about the truth. The fact is since 1989, the American economy has done better under Democratic president’s than Republican president’s. I disagree with Corey Cantor on one thing though. Bill Clinton didn’t inherit a recession in 1993, the George H.W. Bush recession was over by I believe the spring of 1992 and the economy grew at around two-percent the last quarter of that year. And President Bush 1 did have a net increase in jobs during his four years.

But the economy even in President Clinton’s first four years, was better than his predecessor President Bush and his successor President Bush as well. Ten-million new jobs net were created in President Clinton’s first four years. Unemployment under six-percent, it was over seven-percent when he took office in 1993. The budget deficit was around three-hundred-billion when President Clinton took office in 1993. And it was cut to one-fifty-billion dollars by 1997.

Then you go up to President George W. Bush who didn’t have one recession, but he had two recessions in his eight years as President. 2001-02, slow recovery in 2003 and then of course a big downturn in 2007, followed the Great Recession of 2008-09. President Bush only had really three solid years economically as President. From 2004-07, out of an eight-year presidency, unlike President Reagan another Republican President who had six solid years economically from 1983-89. President Bush came to office with a hundred-billion dollar budget surplus in 2001. Left office with a one-trillion dollar deficit, and a ten-trillion dollar national debt in 2009.

As much as the American economy may have struggled under President Obama with the slow recovery from the Great Recession, well slow pre-2014, even job growth has been pretty solid since 2010, he wills still leave office n 2017 with a better economic record than President Bush. Assuming there isn’t any major downturn in the economy. If the President and the Republican Congress can agree on trade, tax reform, energy and infrastructure, he probably won’t have that problem to deal with. And may not have to worry about any economic downturn at all. Consumer spending is up, deficit is falling and the President will probably get some trade bills out of Congress in the next two-years.

This isn’t any partisan attacks and if the situation was reversed with the economy doing better under Republican president, you can bet your last dollar that Republicans would be throwing those facts in Democratic faces. But the facts are the economy since 1989 has done better under Democratic presidents. And I could go into why and why I believe that is the case, but that is really the subject for another blog in the future. But as much as Republicans love to talk about fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint, other than George H.W. Bush their presidents haven’t had a very good record there, at least in recent history.