Simply Happy: Sophia Loren & Brigitte Bardot- Mambo Italiano

Source:Simply Happy- Mambo Italiano with Brigitte Bardot.

"WATCH IN HD ! SHARE IF YOU LIKED IT ! // REGARDEZ EN HD ! PARTAGEZ SI VOUS AVEZ AIMÉ ! This is my very first editing using BB images. I loved doing it and I hope you'll enjoy it too ! Write comments down below if you need any information about BB or whatever :-)

Music : Mambo Italiano - Bette Midler - Sings Rosemary Clooney Songbook - 2003

(I do not own the rights for the music)" 

Source:GIFS- Sophia Loren's Mambo Italiano.

From Simply Happy 

French Babydoll (as I call her) Brigitte Bardot was (at least) as adorable as woman could be. You put a list of the top Hollywood Babydoll's of all-time together, you would be spending a lot of time on that and perhaps have too much free time to put together a list like that, but if you actually did that, Brigitte would be in the top 1%. Not the French Marilyn Monroe, because she was ever cuter and a better actress. But it's Sophia Loren (The Italian Goddess, as I call her) who really makes this video work with that incredible voice and that great song with the great beat, with Brigitte looking as adorable as any woman could in the video. 

If you watch the original version of Mambo Italiano with Sophia Loren, Sophia is doing all the work in the video. The singing, the dancing, looking absolutely hot as a summer day in Sicily and absolutely adorable with that sizzling baby face and incredible voice that gives every man who has probably ever heard or seen her the impression that they've died early and have been sent from Heaven, or that Sophia was sent down from Heaven and given a second chance at life to make men happy. 

So in the Mambo Italiano video with Brigitte Bardot, you have this absolutely adorable French Babydoll who looks like she could still be in high school, (or junior high, or elementary school) dancing to the song of a Goddess who looks like she was just sent down from Heaven, in Sophia Loren, which obviously makes for a very attractive combination. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CSPAN: Katherine Benton-Cohen- 'Lectures In History: The Progressive Era'

Source:CSPAN- Theodore Roosevelt: at least arguably the father of the Progressive Movement in America, campaigning for President, perhaps in 1912.

"We visit Georgetown University for a class with professor Katherine Benton-Cohen. She explains how politicians and reform groups in the early 20th century attempted to improve social and economic conditions through trust busting, interstate regulation, and Prohibition. We also hear about the policies and campaigns of Theodore Roosevelt, the period's most dominant political figure.

Source:CSPAN- Catherine Benton-Cohen: Professor of History, Georgetown University.

Full lecture here:CSPAN."  

From CSPAN

Just on a personal note first, which is actually very important, because it's why I'm writing this piece: I was watching this lecture on CSPAN last Wednesday night (what can I say: I'm a political history junky, who watches CSPAN) from Georgetown University History Professor Catherine Benton-Cohen and she was talking about the Progressive Era from a hundred plus years ago. And she made some very interesting points that I want to talk about in this piece about Progressive (the real Progressives, as I call them) and progressivism (the real progressivism, as I call it) that I'm going to get into in this piece. 

Professor Cohen talking about people she would call Reformers (the people I call the Progressives) versus Revolutionaries. (People I call Socialists) When you're talking and thinking about these two political factions, you're talking basically talking about the Theodore Roosevelt's of the world and his Progressive Republicans and Progressive Party. Versus the Eugene Debs (Look him up, if you're not familiar and you're interested in Socialists and socialism)  Eugene Debs was a Socialist activist early in the 20th Century, who was also an antiwar activist and pacifist who ran for President multiple times for the Socialist Party back then. 

Professor Cohen was arguing that the Progressives led by Teddy Roosevelt and others (the Reformers) were trying to fix and improve the economic system in America so it could work for more people. Whereas the Socialists led by Gene Debs and others (the Revolutionaries) wanted to tear down the American capitalist system, start over, and create something else, like a socialist state. 

One way and perhaps even a humorous and perhaps insulting way (if you're a Revolutionary) to look at the Reformer vs Revolutionary debate, is to think about a mechanic versus a rioter. The mechanic simply wants to fix what's the wrong with the car or whatever he's working on (or the person could be a she) if he can and perhaps even make the car better. The rioter says the car is no good and therefor needs to be destroyed and be replaced by a completely different car. 

Well, there was a split in the Progressive Era or movement 100 years ago better Reformers and Revolutionaries with the Revolutionaries led by Debbs and others believing that progressivism doesn't go far enough and what the country needs instead is a socialist movement that eventually leads to America becoming a socialist state. Something that Socialists in and outside of the Democratic Party are still fighting for 100 years later. With the Reformers led by TR and others saying that what works well in America, works very well and what we need to do instead is create an America that works for more people, but within the American capitalist system of property rights, private enterprise, and opportunity. 

I've been arguing for the last three ever years ever since I started this blog that Progressives and Socialists aren't the same people with just two different labels. And that progressivism and socialism isn't the same political philosophy isn't the same political philosophy with two different names. That there are real differences in both even if share similar goals. Like a country with no poverty and bigotry. (To use as examples) And in the near future I will write a piece about how Progressives and Socialists are very different and I hope you'll enjoy that as well. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Theodore Roosevelt: Proud To Be a Conservative?

Source:Ben Norton- Teddy Roosevelt's: definition of a Conservative?

"Theodore Roosevelt quotes and sayings.

Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt (October 27, 1858  January 6, 1919)  was the 26th President of the United States. Well know for his famous quotes. He is well remembered for his energetic personality, range of interests and achievements, leadership of the Progressive Movement, model of masculinity, and his "cowboy" image. He was a leader of the Republican Party and founder of the short-lived Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party of 1912. Before becoming President (19011909) he held offices at the municipal, state, and federal level of government. Roosevelt's achievements as a naturalist, explorer, hunter, author, and soldier are as much a part of his fame as any office he held as a politician."

Source:Wiley Studios- Some of Teddy Roosevelt's quotes

From Wiley Studios

What I get from this Teddy Roosevelt quote about being a Conservative, is that he intended to conserve private corporations and leave them place and even protect their rights, but in the interests of the people. That for-profit corporations aren't there simply to make as much money for themselves at all costs and be able to do anything that they want at call costs, that what they're doing has to benefit the people as well. That corporations are part of the American community and therefor have both rights and responsibilities to the country as well.

Teddy Roosevelt, wasn't an Ayn Laissez Faire capitalist when it came to economic policy. And he wasn't a Eugene Debs. ( one of the prominent Socialist in TR's time ) either. Teddy Roosevelt, was a Progressive Republican ( I know that sounds funny today ) who believed in American capitalism, private enterprise, and individualism, but that those things should be for everyone. Not just people who are born to wealth and that everyone should have an opportunity to succeed in America and that government, including the Federal Government has a responsibility to see that everyone has a shot to make it in America.

Teddy Roosevelt, didn't believe in high taxation ( at least not across the board ) and he didn't believe that everyone should be guaranteed a middle class income. But he did believe everyone should have a good shot and opportunity to be successful in America. And that government had real responsibilities in seeing that everyone did have those opportunities. Like has it to the regulatory states to protect consumers and workers from predators. A public safety net for people who fall on hard times. A public infrastructure system so people can get around and so jobs can be created in this country. And believed that being a Conservative was about conserving our American values like capitalism, private enterprise, individualism, but that those things had to work for everyone, not just wealthy people.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

Frank Talk: Frank Colletta- Episode 1: What Does It Mean To Be a Progressive?

Source:Frank Talk- Franklin Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt: two of our Progressive President's.

Source:The New Democrat

"Welcome to Frank Talk episode 1. Join me as we explore the Four Pillars of Progressive Thought and what it means to be a progressive-minded individual. Special thanks to Think Progress for their article entitled: "What it Means to Be a Progressive", written by John Halpin. His work was integral to the creation of this educational video. Thanks is also given to the American Values Project for their work on, "Progressive Thinking: A Synthesis of Progressive Values and Beliefs and Positions".

From Frank Talk

Source:Wikipedia

"Progressivism is the support for or advocacy for improvement of society by reform. As a philosophy it's based on the idea of progress which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development and social technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition."

I like Frank Colletta's line about: "within every heart of a Conservative, you find hopes for a progressive tomorrow." Which has always been one of the points about Progressive and progressivism, that it's not partisan and in some cases it's not ideological even. And people need to understand that if they really want to know what it means to be a Progressive and what progressivism is actually about, especially with the Far-Left who are really Socialists and in some cases even Communists, who try to adopt Progressive and progressivism for themselves, because they're afraid to be labeled as Socialists or Communists depending on how far to the left that actually are.

As far as Frank Colletta saying that progressivism is about fairness and equality: sure, but most mainstream political philosophies whether they're right or left believe in some level of fairness ( or as I prefer justice ) and equality. Progressives, don't have the monopoly on justice and equality.

The First Pillar: Freedom and Opportunity

Again, most mainstream political philosophies believe in some level of freedom and opportunity. Where Progressives would differ from Conservative-Libertarians ( let's say ) on the Right and Socialists as well on the Left, is that Progressives believe that government has a role in seeing that everyone had the ability and opportunity to live in freedom in America. Not just people who are born to wealth in America or people from a certain racial or ethnic background. Which is where Progressives would differ from Conservatives when it comes to freedom.

But Progressives differ from Socialists as well, because Socialists believe that opportunity doesn't go far enough, because they believe that some people won't take advantage of those opportunities and come up short. Or some people will do so well and have so much freedom over others and that to Socialists is somehow unfair. Progressives, don't believe in total economic equality in the sense that everyone has the same basic income and standard of living, but that everyone has the opportunity to achieve real freedom in America.

My short, but simple definition of a Progressive in a political sense: is someone who believes in progress through government action. Progressive, is not another word for Socialist ( democratic or otherwise ) and Progressive is not another word for hippie or hipster: someone who is in on all the latest social trends and proud of that. You don't have to to hip, cool, or awesome to be a Progressive: You just have to believe in progress and that government has a limited, but real role in achieving progress and that everyone's constitutional rights are protected and that everyone has a real shot at succeeding in America. That everyone is protected from predators and predatory behavior, foreign or domestic.

A Progressive is not someone who is necessarily in on all the latest social trends and backs them, or has a big government solution and tax increase to solve everyone's problems for them and take care of them. Or someone who believes that freedom is dangerous and selfish.

Roosevelt House: Patricia O'Toole- The Moralist: 'Woodrow Wilson and The World He Made'

Source:Roosevelt House- A Patricia O'Toole book event about Woodrow Wilson. 

"Roosevelt House as we welcome acclaimed historian Patricia  O’Toole and mark the publication of her already acclaimed new book, The Moralist: Woodrow Wilson and the World He Made. O’Toole, the prize-winning biographer of  Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Adams, will be in conversation with David Nasaw, the Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Professor of History at CUNY Graduate Center and the author of The Patriarch: The Remarkable Life and Turbulent Times of Joseph P. Kennedy, among other books.

O’Toole and Nasaw will discuss the life and legacy of one of the most high-minded, consequential, and controversial U. S. presidents, and explore O’Toole’s argument that the Wilson presidency offers a cautionary tale about the perils of moral vanity and American overreach in foreign affairs. The speakers will also address the paradoxes that mark Wilson’s career: he was a progressive who enjoyed unprecedented success in leveling the economic playing field, but he was behind the times on racial equality and women’s suffrage. As a Southern boy during the Civil War, he knew the ravages of war, as president he refused to lead the country into World War I until he was convinced that Germany posed a direct threat to the United States. Once committed, he was an admirable commander-in-chief, yet he also presided over harsh suppression of political dissent, and, as president, the re-segregation of the federal government.

Welcoming remarks by Roosevelt House Director Harold Holzer.

Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College, May 15, 2018."

From Roosevelt House

If you want to call Woodrow Wilson a Liberal or even a Liberal Democrat, that's fine but should at leas know what those terms mean:

From Wikipedia

"Liberal democracy, is a liberal political philosophy and form of government that operators under the principles of classical liberalism."

President Woodrow Wilson, was someone who believed in liberal democracy ( perhaps not for all like African-Americans, American-Indians, and women ) and all the liberal values ( except for qual justice and equal rights ) that come with liberal democracy. Like representative democracy, checks and balances, the rule of law, open society, a market economy, property rights, equal justice, equal rights, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, political freedom for all people. ( Again, except for the groups that I mentioned ) Not exactly the values that so-called liberals ( closeted Socialists, in actuality ) tend to advocate for when they seem to be more interested in central government control over society on behalf of the people, as they would argue.

Woodrow Wilson is literally one of the architects of the liberal democratic order: a group of developed nations that see it as their role to defend and advocate for human rights and individual freedom around the world and speak out and act against nations and leaders that don't believe in those liberal values and instead advocate for authoritarianism and central government control over the people. And that this coalition of democracies, both liberal and social work in coalition to protect themselves from authoritarians who are threats to their freedom and sovereignty and to help other countries who want democracy and freedom for themselves achieve those values as well.

Woodrow Wilson, was in power a 100 years ago and his politics of liberal democratic values, to go along with progressive economic values, along with being essentially a Neo-Confederate when it came to race relations and treatment of non-European-Americans in society, aren't represented by anyone today. We still have Liberal Democrats. We still have Progressives. And we still have Neo-Confederates who are known as Nationalists today on the Right. But we don't have a political faction or even individuals in America that you could call a Wilsonian who represents all of Woodrow Wilson's politics, because it's a 100 years later and and American politics is a lot different, but also when someone tends to be Center-Left ( let's say ) on economic and foreign policy, they also tend to be liberal or progressive on social issues as well.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

AZ Quotes: Theodore Roosevelt- 'It Is Hard To Fail But It's Worse To Have Never Tried To Succeed'

Source:AZ Quotes- One of Teddy Roosevelt's best quotes ever. 

"It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed.” -Theodore Roosevelt."

Source:ONO Home- One of Theodore Roosevelt's best quotes. 

From ONO Home

In a world that is not dominated by the imperfect, but is a world of the imperfect where the perfect human being has yet to be born, we all make mistakes. But would we want it any other way? What would you one like if you were perfect an incapable of making mistakes: wouldn't life become boring for you? No point in ever trying to learn anything, because you already know everything. So of course we all fail and have even failed a lot, doesn't make us failures necessarily, if we bothered to acknowledge those mistakes, learn from them and not repeat them again. Because now you know what doesn't work and what works and unless you're an idiot you're going to do what works in the future instead.

Life regardless of where you live is a constant education. Even if you've graduated college or even graduates school and have a masters, your education process hasn't stopped yet. Now you might decide to stop learning and think you already  know everything and have all the answers, but it's people like that you tend to fail the most and make the biggest mistakes, because they think they already know everything. The only time the learning process stops for anyone is after we're already dead, unless we've made to Heaven or Hell and then the learning process just continues. And if there are such places we can learn about what we're missing. The only way to ever fail in life, is to try to succeed and perhaps not know everything and make bad mistakes from that. The only way not to fail is to not try at all and become guilty of not even trying.

Teddy Roosevelt, was the Progressive's Progressive ( as I call him ) who was always moving forward and trying to get better and making life better for himself, people around him, and for society in general. Which is why this quote from his is so Teddy and represents almost everything that he ever stood for as a man. To always look forward and to be the best that anyone can be. For America to be the best country that we can be. That there's no such thing as a perfect society and Utopia, but that should never stop us form ever tying to accomplish that so we can make America as great as it can be. To always look for progress and try to achieve it to make the best country for ourself that we can possibly create. Which is what I get from this great Teddy Roosevelt quote. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Coleman Museum: Bull Moose Party- 1912 Campaign

Source:Coleman Museum- Historian John M. Cooper, talking about the Progressive Party of 1912. 

Source:The Daily View

"10 Bull Moose Party, 1912 Campaign 11 57."

From Coleman Museum

If you want to know why there was even a Bull Moose Party or Progressive Party in 1912, it’s because Theodore Roosevelt didn’t win the 1912 Republican nomination for President. It was Teddy Roosevelt’s narcissism and his ambition to become President of the United States again which is how we got the Progressive Party in 1912. The real Progressive-Left in America which has almost nothing to do with the so-called Progressive-Left of today which is really a Socialist-Left led by Senator Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other Socialists in and outside of the Democratic Party today.

Source: The Thresh Baker- Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party.

And what the Progressive Party was running on in 1912, is what became President Franklin Roosevelt’s ( Teddy Roosevelt’s cousin ) the American public safety net what us better known as the New Deal in the 1930s. Pension insurance what’s known as Social Security, which is for people who don’t have enough of a pension to retire.

Unemployment Insurance, minimum wage, social insurances for people who struggle to pay their bills or who find themselves unemployed.

Not looking to create a British or Scandinavia welfare state in America, but creating social insurance for people who truly need it who are too young to retire and who are physically and mentally still able to work.

Source: Progressive Bull Moose Party- Progressives or Socialists?

The reason why Teddy Roosevelt, wasn’t elected President again in 1912 is because you had basically Republicans voting against Republicans. Republicans who are now in the Progressive Party, voting against President William Taft and Republicans who are still in the Republican Party, voting for Teddy Roosevelt.

Similar to why Hubert Humphrey doesn’t win the presidency in 1968 because you had Democrats voting against Democrats . With George Wallace running for President for the Independence Party with right-wing Dixiecrats voting against Hubert Humphrey. Republicans, were simply too divided and voting against each other in 1912 to put a Republican back in the White House.

Investigation Discovery: Jodi Arias- 'The Missing Pieces'

Source:Investigation Discovery- Convicted murderer Jodi Arias. 

Source: The New Democrat

"Ten years later, people still talk about Jodi Arias and the murder of Travis Alexander. Through exclusive interviews with her former lawyer, a former cellmate, and a rapper who recorded a tribute to her, The Missing Pieces goes deeper into Arias's story.

Stream full episodes of your favorite ID shows now! Investigation Discovery."

If you look at Jodi Arias who was convicted of murdering her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander in 2012, if you just look at her on the surface and seeing her for the first time physically, I think you would have a very difficult time believing she could even kill a mouse let alone a grown, healthy, strong, young man. She's simply too damn cute to play the role of a murderer even fictionally, let alone in real-life. She comes off a a girl who is still in high school and perhaps even younger than that as far as her physical appearance, her voice, and personality.

Source: Philo- Convicted murderer Jodi Arias 

But perhaps the most successful murderers especially serial murderers, are the cutest people doing the murders. Or in Ted Bundy's case, the handsomeness and most charming, because their victims would never expect them to kill a bug let alone another human being. The ultimate sneak attack which is how Jodi Arias murdered Travis Alexander at his home in 2008. I'm not arguing that she's not guilty of at least killing Travis and I believe she probably murdered him, just saying that on her surface she looks like one of the last people who could ever kill anyone. But then you get to know her and learn about her personality, it's not hard to believe that she could kill anyone.

Source: Kevin Clark- Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander, when they were still together 

As far as her lawyer Kirk Nurmi, who came down with cancer from apparently defending Jodi and trying to keep her from the death penalty, I don't want to make light of his situation. And I'm not making light here either, but even defense lawyers have a conscience and he must have had a pretty good idea that his client was probably guilty of this crime, but decided to defend her anyway. Even murderers have a constitutional right to an adequate defense, but unless the judge assigns you to the case, you don't have to take it and you can always asked be to be removed from it and step down.

I don't want to say lost soul here, but before Jodi Arias met Travis Alexander she really had no idea what she was going to do with her life. Unlike Travis who was a devout Mormon and was making his living as a public speaker and self-improvement speaker. We don't know what happens to Jodi had she not had murdered Travis and perhaps Travis would've dumped her because she did seem to have possessive characteristics and could even be dangerous and violent. Maybe she moves on in life makes something positive of herself or finds another victim. We'll never know.

David Winning: Exception To The Rule (1997) Featuring Kim Cattrall, Eric McCormack & Sean Young

Source:Wikipedia- Exception To The Rule, 1997 poster. 

Source:The Action Blog

“Exception To The Rule is a 1997 Canadian-German erotic thriller film directed by David Winning and stars Kim Cattrall, Eric McCormack, Sean Young and William Devane.

A married jewel trader is seduced by a beautiful woman while on a business trip. Upon returning home, he receives a video tape in the mail of his tryst and a threat to ruin his marriage if he doesn’t turn a shipment of diamonds over to the woman.”

From Wikipedia

"EXCEPTION TO THE RULE - Directed by David Winning.  Kim Cattrall, Eric McCormack, Sean Young, William Devane." David Winning"

Source:David Winning- left to right: Sean Young & Kim Cattrall.

From David Winning

“EXCEPTION TO THE RULE – Directed by David Winning pt.2 of clip Kim Cattrall, Eric McCormack, Sean Young, William Devane”

From David Winning

“Kim Cattrall as Carla Rainer in Exception to the Rule (1997)”

Source:Famous Fix- Hollywood Goddess Kim Cattrall 

From Famous Fix

To be completely honest with you: Kim Cattrall is really the only reason why I watched Exception to The Rule and why I'm at best a casual fan of it. I am a big fan of Sean Young and believe she's beautiful, sexy, very adorable, and at times at least very funny as well, but I don't believe this is her best role and movie. Her part is important especially at the end where she ends up killing The Leather N Denim Assassin. ( As I call Kim Cattrall )

But this movie is really about how the Eric McCormack and Carla Rainer ( played by Kim ) interact with each other. He's married to Angela ( played by Sean Young ) and has an affair with a perspective client or friend of McCormick's boss ( played by William DeVane ) and uses that as blackmail leverage to get this young successful lawyer to pay him or. Or threatens to tell his father in law and boss ( played by William DeVane ) about their affair and he holds firm and refuses to pay her. 

As you can imagine she doesn't take that well and that is how the final scene of the movie develops where The Leather N Denim Assassin Carla Rainer ( played by Kim ) breaks in to this young couple's home in an attempt to take Angela hostage in order to get her husband to pay ransom on her. There are good scenes before this moment like where Carla, gets rid of a man who she had a complicated history with by killing him and when he thinks she's playing him off. A nasty murder where she literally runs him over and then blows up the car. She tried murdering Tim Bayer ( played by Eric McCormack ) by trying to run him down in broad daylight earlier in the movie. He attempts to pay her off and does so, which isn't good enough for her which leads up to the last scene of the movie. 

Kim Cattrall is really the only reason I'm interested in this movie. She's this red-hot adorable redhead, with a beautiful body and even a quick sarcastic wit in the movie and in some cases in the movie even comes off as likable in is beyond her goddess like physical appearance. Sean Young has a good scene in the movie as well playing an adorable hostage who manages to break away from her would be captures. But Kim breaking into the home to take Angela hostage, in this beautiful black biker leather jacket, and black denim Levi's, black boots. This scene happening at night and she sort of looks like a thief breaking into a jewelry store or bank at nigh and the confrontation that she has with Tim ( Angela's husband ) is the really the only reasons for me to watch this movie. 

Inside Edition: Ali Rosen- 'Legendary Chef and Traveler Anthony Bourdain Dies At 61': The Man Who Saw and Lived The World

Source:Inside Edition- Celebrity chef and traveler Anthony Bourdain. 

Source: The New Democrat

"Anthony Bourdain, an American chef and television personality, has been found dead of an apparent suicide. He was 61. His body was found in a French hotel room by close friend and chef Éric Ripert, according to CNN.  The pair had been traveling together for the filming of Bourdain's CNN show, "Parts Unknown." As part of his Emmy Award-winning program, which premiered in 2013, Bourdain traveled the world, uncovering lesser-known cuisines."

From Inside Edition

When I first heard about Anthony Bourdain's show Parts Unknown coming to CNN in 2013 or 14, I thought this was another one of those so-called reality TV shows where the lead character is some loudmouth who makes an asshole out of himself ( to be frank ) in order to gain ratings. I'm not a fan of what's called reality TV generally, except for what's actually reality TV which are documentary programs even documentaries about Hollywood, so I was thinking Parts Unknown is not something I'm going to be interested in.

Source: USA Today- Celebrity chef and traveler Anthony Bourdain 

But so-called reality TV is wasn't Tony Bourdain's show and what he wanted to communicate to people. He was a food and cultural documentarian who traveled the world to show people what other people eat and how they live. Who brought people together over good meals and got to learn about them by experiencing them, what they eat, the sites and sounds of their countries. And then he would show everyone else what he learned about Vietnam, Italy, Ecuador, Cuba, and wherever else he would travel to.

Source: The Chive- One of Anthony Bourdain's best quotes 

In a country and world where we're so divided mainly on political and cultural grounds and now unfortunately even by race, ethnicity, and class, Bourdain brought diversity together with food and culture. And showed millions of Americans and people outside of America, that even with all of our differences that we can still share a great meal together, get to know each other and realize we're not that strange from one another after all.

I'm not a cook and all I know about food and cooking is that food can taste really good, it can taste really bad, and generally somewhere in between, in less you what you're doing or where to eat and have the resources to eat great food on a regular basis. But I know what I like and how to cook for myself and what I got from Bourdain was that not all good food has to taste alike and look alike. That good food comes in all different forms made from all different types of people in different countries.

The other thing that I got from Bourdain which I already knew, but hopefully now millions of other Americans and people outside of America hopefully also know, is that it isn't okay to be yourself, but that being yourself is the only person you should be. Because you're the only person you know really well.

When you try to be someone other than yourself especially a famous celebrity that you look up to, all you're doing is acting. And I realize some people do that for a living and even do it on so-called reality TV. But the non-reality actors are professional actors. And when everyone else tries to be someone other than them self, they're not only not just actors, but now they're amateurs and amateur actors.

In a country and world where so many people especially young people feel the need to be like their favorite celebrity and in many cases reality star, Tony Bourdain taught so many people how to be themselves and why they should always be them self. He taught us about individualism and how to be an individual.

I think Ayn Rand would've loved Anthony Bourdain even if was just for that reason. And if you don't like yourself, maybe it's because you have character issues, or you suffer from low self-esteem, which is something that perhaps Bourdain also had issues with.

But that we're the only person we know really well and the only person where we always know what we're thinking and what we know. And when we try to be someone other than ourself, we're just pretending. Anthony Bourdain's belief in individualism and his ability to bring different people together with food and culture, is what I'm going to miss about him.

Slick Rick Nixon: Woodrow Wilson- The Third Party Speech, 1912

Source:Slick Rick Nixon- Woodrow Wilson, for President in 1912.

Source:The Daily View

"This is a speech from Democrat Governor (future president) Woodrow Wilson along the campaign trail in 1912. Woodrow Wilson talks about the new Progressive Party, criticizing Theodore Roosevelt and his methods of supporting the small business man. This is the AUDIO RESTORED version, so most of the static is totally gone and it should be pretty easy to hear.

Fun Fact: T. Woodrow Wilson served as President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1910 and was Governor of New Jersey from 1911 to 1913. As President, he led the United States through World War I and sought the creation of a League of Nations.

For historical authenticity, here is the original: Historical Voices."

Source: Slide Player- Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party 

On domestic policy and perhaps even foreign policy, Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, were very similar. They were both Progressives ( in the classic and real sense ) but Teddy Roosevelt wanted to be President again after declining not to run for reelection in 1908 and perhaps not regretting that and after not getting the Republican nomination for President in 1912 created the Progressive Party and ran third-party for President in 1912.

Source: Slide Player- Progressive Democratic Party?

Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat and back in 1912 the Democratic Party wasn’t seen and wasn’t a progressive party. A party that was dominated by right-wing Southerners who were basically Neo-Confederates and Nationalists. Wilson wasn’t those things, but he was to the right of Teddy Roosevelt. And in the Republican Party you had a conservative party led by President William H. Taft.

So in 1912 America was still a fairly conservative country, but there was an opening on the Left and perhaps even Far-Left with Eugene Debbs and his Socialist Party to take on the Conservative Republicans led by President Taft, with the Wilson progressive wing in the Democratic Party and the Roosevelt progressive wing in the Republican fleeing to the Progressive Party. Leaving President Taft without enough voters to get reelected.

I don’t see how Woodrow Wilson becomes President of the United States in 1912 or in the distant future if it’s just Democrats vs Republicans. Because the Republican Party had the Conservatives and the Progressives and the Democratic Party was a Dixie party controlled by Southern Neo-Confederates. Which is one thing that makes the 1912 presidential election so interesting and such a great election, because it really was liberal democracy with so much choice for American voters to choose from for President. A real Conservative in William Taft. A real Progressive in Theodore Roosevelt. And a moderate Progressive in Woodrow Wilson. As well as a hard-core Socialist in Eugene Debbs.

Washington Watch: BookTV Afterwords- Carlos Lozada Interviewing David Frum: 'Trumpocracy & The State of Western Democracy'

Source:Washington Watch- Carlos Lozada, interviewing David Frum about his book Trumpocracy.

Source:The New Democrat

"David Frum: Trumpocracy at Amazon
Hour long discussion with David Frum, Former White House speechwriter and The Atlantic columnist. He is interviewed by Washington Post book critic and associate editor Carlos Lozada. Frum is the son of Canadian journalist Barbara Frum.

He graduated from the University of Toronto Schools in 1978 where he was the school captain. At Yale University, he simultaneously earned Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees in history, graduating in 1982. He was in Directed Studies, a type of "Great Books" curriculum.

Frum earned his Juris Doctor (J.D.) at Harvard Law School in 1987."

From Washington Watch

Maybe Trumpocracy is another way of talking about the new highly rated Washington reality TV show known as The White House, with Donald Trump. I say highly rated and not highly successful, because it's not successful at least as far as far as how the American people think of it.

Anytime 3-5 voters don't like the politician that is supposed to represent them whatever the office is, that politician is not doing well. 3-5 Americans don't like the job that President Trump is doing, don't like him personally, and don't trust him. He's in Richard Nixon territory as far as how unpopular he is with the American people. But his new show and perhaps Amateur Night at The White House, would be a better name for President Trump's latest reality TV show, is highly rated.

You can't just look at Donald Trump by only looking at one aspect of him. You have to look at the narcissistic, selfish, gigantic, sized personality. You have to look at his governing style, which he doesn't seem to have at least from the outside looking in. You have to look at his policies. You have to look at his supporters which at this point are only little more than a third of the electorate, but we're enough to at least get him the Republican nomination for President.

And then you have to look to his appeasement of those voters. The salesmanship to be kind, the con game would be more accurate in how he appeals to blue-collar, fundamentalist, Christian voters especially in the Republican Party, but in some cases in the upper Midwest the Democratic Party as well.

In 2016 we saw the John Birch Society/George Wallace/Ann Coulter/Pat Buchanan right-wing populist ethno-Tribalist-Nationalist presidential candidate, but with a personality, as well as great sense of humor and even likable at times in Donald Trump. And yes, Donald Trump is a very funny man ( even intentionally ) and even likable when he's in small spaces and groups.

This is a political faction in America that has been around since World War I at least in America that views conspiracy theories as real news like Vice President Lyndon Johnson ordering the assassination of President John Kennedy. And real news as fake and establishment news. Who don't trust institutions especially non-partisan institutions like the CIA and FBI, simply because they can't be controlled by partisans. And operate independently even from the President.

I view Donald Trump as wannabe dictator who picked the last country in the world to try to become a dictator in the United States of America. Sort of like a village idiot who tries to rob a bank with just a leaky water gun at 12 noon on a Monday and wonders what went wrong and how come people were just laughing at him instead of giving him their money.

President Trump knows he can't shut down the private media because we have a guaranteed free press and his administration simply wouldn't allow for him to even try that. So he calls them fake news at least when they report negative facts about him. Which is most of the time. He says his entire intelligence community is wrong when they say that Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election.

He accuses people that he personally appointed as being disloyal and part of the establishment when they don't shut down the Russia investigation and even expand it when new facts and evidence come to light about the Trump Campaign's involvement with Russia during the 2016 election. Because he's smart enough to know he can't control these investigations and what Congress does by himself. So he instead attempts to make them look corrupt. He's a wannabe dictator in the wrong country and doesn't like accountability and limited power.

In some ways Donald Trump is the worst nightmare and horror movie coming to real life and part of that is because he's now the President of the United States. Literally the most powerful and most important country in the world, the greatest country in the world as far as how powerful and influential in the world. But part of why we're so strong, powerful, and great, is because of our checks and balances, our accountability. Which was designed in case someone like Donald Trump ever became President.

The reason why we've been able to avoid nationalist populist authoritarians from coming to power in America and why countries like Russia, Poland, Venezuela, haven't, is because of our checks and balances. And is something that Donald Trump is learning the hard way.

The Film Archives: The Washington Journal With Brian Lamb- Camille Paglia & Bay Buchanan: On College Students, Education, Government, Women in Politics

Source:The Film Archives- Author Camille Paglia, giving a speech at some event, perhaps in New York City.

Source:The New Democrat

"Buchanan was the national treasurer of the "Reagan for President" primary campaigns of 1976 and 1980, and the Reagan-Bush general election campaigns of 1980 and 1984. After appearing regularly on CNN's news program Inside Politics, she became a commentator for The Situation Room, and later Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull. She previously served as the co-anchor of Equal Time on CNBC and MSNBC, and during that time also hosted a two-hour radio talk show."

From The Film Archives

I like and respect Camille Paglia a lot, at least when I'm quick enough to understand what she's saying, or at the very least catch every word that she says. She talks the way kitty cats run and Nascar cars race. You can write a book with her mouth in a few minutes. But when I am able to follow along she makes a lot of sense. Her politics at least up to ten years ago would put on the liberal-libertarian or classical liberal wing of the American political spectrum. ( The real Liberals )

She calls herself a feminist but I would put her on the classical side of that as well. That women shouldn't be discriminated against based on gender, but that women shouldn't be rewarded based on their gender. Unlike a lot of these so-called radical feminists today on the New-Left ( or Far-Left ) who think America should just be made up of women and gay men and that masculinity ( unless it comes from women ) is somehow a bad thing. That straight men at least Caucasian straight men, are inherently bad people and that straight men are ruining America.

Camille's politics when it comes to liberalism and feminism, seems to be about choice. That women should be able to make their own choices in life and be able to think for themselves. That if they want to work, then that should be their choice. But if they decide to stay home and raise their kids which is also a job and a paying job at that, then that is what should be able to do. That women should be able to think for themselves and not be feel the need to look down at straight men and see them as evil. But if they want to believe that straight men are bad, then that would be their choice as a radical feminist.

That women shouldn't be forced to be big government Socialists, who believe big centralized government has all the answers in life. Or they can be Conservative-Libertarians who don't believe big government has many if any answers at all to solving problems in society. But that they should be able to think for themselves without radical feminists viewing them as sellouts to the feminist cause or a traitors who are in the laps and beds of straight men.

If there was a free market for women, it would've been created by the Camille Paglia liberal wing of feminism. That there should be choice across the board and not just when it comes to abortion and sexuality but in life in general. When and if they work, sexuality in general, how they should think, what their politics should be. Instead of being told by radical feminists and the Socialist-Left or the Christian-Right on what it means to be a real woman in America and how all women should be forced to live.