The term genius gets thrown out a lot and generally thrown badly and for a lot of incomplete passes ( to use a football analogy ) and gets thrown around by a lot of people who certainly aren’t geniuses and if anything are lazy mentally. And they use it to talk about people who impress them and these people tend to get impressed easily. The word is misused a lot similar to how the word awesome is misused today and done for pop culture reasons. But Elizabeth Taylor’s case, I believe genius fits her perfectly and not just because she’s a great actress, but because of every other characteristic that comes with being a genius.
a genius is someone who is very great and possesses rare natural ability or skill especially in a particular area such as science or art. That’s a paraphrase but it’s pretty close. But we all know or know of people that could be accurately labeled as geniuses who are different and standout in other areas and perhaps not as well as they do with their craft.
Anyone who is familiar with the filmmaker and aviator Howard Hughes knows that he was great at his business, but struggled to get close to anyone emotionally and preferred to be left alone. Richard Nixon, in a lot of ways was a brilliant man when it came to public policy especially as it related to foreign affairs and national security, but struggled to socialize with people and didn’t like even shaking hands with other people.
Liz Taylor, was a genius in another way as an actress. Someone who was great at playing her parts so well that she made you believe that she was exactly the person that she was playing, but struggled in other areas of her personal life and could even come off as an idiot as far as how she lived her personal life. All the marriages and the different men in her life, the obesity, followed by alcoholism.
Liz, was great at doing the things that made her famous in life which was her ability to act and had a very sharp intelligent wit and could sum up things very well and accurately and do it in a humorous way, but struggled to make deep connections with people and relate to them positively and keep relationships with people she cared about and loved. Things that normal people, ( not to be insulting ) but people who aren’t geniuses, but otherwise intelligent and talented do well in their everyday lives everyday.
There have been a lot of great soap operas both in the movies and on TV. The big ones of course today are The Young And The Restless, General Hospital, Days of Our Lives, but back in the day you had great prime time soap operas like Melrose Place, Dynasty, One Life To Live, Guiding Light, and movies that were soaps like Where Love Has Gone with Susan Hayward and Mike Connors, Love Has Many Faces with Lana Turner and Cliff Robertson, Strangers When We Meet with Kirk Douglas and Kim Novak. But if I had to choose one over every other I have to choose Dallas because it represents soap opera at it’s best, which is what I’m going to explain.
When I think of great soaps I think of dramatic comedy at it’s best where you have really serious scenes and situations, but people and characters who are exactly that who do crazy things and seem somewhat out of control and yet always seem to know what they’re doing. Like the JR Ewing character ( played by Larry Hagman ) on Dallas. Where you have serious situations with serious people, but doing crazy funny things. Like two adult women getting into cat fights and throwing pillows at each other. Happened multiple times between Linda Evans and Joan Collins on Dynasty.
Or two grown men getting into a fist fight at a restaurant because they’re interested in the same woman, with one of them saying, “look, we’re both adults here no need to fight for her.” Even though that’s exactly what happens two guys getting into a fist fight over a girl the kind of thing that happens in high school, but on Dallas or on another great soap opera it happens between two middle age men in public at a popular restaurant. Dallas, wasn’t a drama or a comedy, it was both because it was a soap opera. You had a lot of serious situations and serious people, but with crazy immature people doing a lot and saying a lot of funny crazy things. Like with Larry Hagman on the show, who was like an evil bastard, except he was so good at it and funny at it you almost had to like him or at least respect him because he was so good at being a bastard.
The 1980s was a decade of excess where Americans had a lot of money and seemed to be in a hurry to spend as much of it as they possibly could as if they’re was a national money going out of business sale and you have to spend all of your money before it becomes worthless. And Dallas perfectly represented the 1980s with the actors and characters that they had, as well as the writers. Similar to how Easy Rider perfectly represented the 1960s. It also represented a time when network TV was not only great, but relevant as well and where people wanted to watch CBS, ABC, and NBC every night and not just for sports and movies, but for programs as well. And almost 30 years later after Dallas finally went off the air after 13 seasons Dallas is still the best soap opera ever.
Is Donald Trump the best salesman we’ve ever seen in American politics as far as getting people to by what he’s selling regardless of the quality of products that he’s selling, or is he the best conman we’ve ever seen in American politics? If you look at his agenda and how unpopular it is and his lack of success in getting anything that he ran on 2016 passed in Congress, he’s not a very good salesman.
Running for president and even getting elected President, is obviously a hell of a lot different than doing the job and getting people to support what you’re doing. A 33-35% approval rating out of 100% by the way, is not a very good record as far as selling your presidency and your agenda. So in this sense at least he’s the worst salesman perhaps we’ve ever seen in American politics, at least to this point, because only a third of the country is buying what he’s doing right now.
Donald Trump literally operates in a fact free world. Its not what the truth actually is that concerns him, because the truth is generally bad about him. Its what he can literally get away with that concerns him. This is why I mentioned the conman part because if the conman literally operated from the truth and told people he has all of this junk to sell you or this scam you should invest in and give the conman most of the money that the customer would never see a dime on and would lose a lot of money instead, the conman would never be successful, obviously. Donald Trump operates in the same fact free world that a conman operates from. Its not the truth thats important, but what he can get away with and what he can get people to believe.
One thing I’ll give Donald Trump credit for is that he’s a master salesman/conman at getting people who now hate American politics (thanks to the Republican Party and Democratic Party) to buy what he’s selling. He’s great with labeling people and situations and great with political catch phrases. “Make America great again.” Well, if you get past the small point that most Americans including myself already think America is great and thought America was great back in 2008-09 when George W. Bush was still President, who could possibly disagree with that catch phrase. Who doesn’t (except for Socialists and Communists) want America to be great?
I agree with Scott Adams on one thing. But I would have one qualifier to that. I believe a popular inspirational well-funded Democrat would have beaten Donald Trump in 2016 just because Trump s Trump and the campaign he ran. Hillary Clinton lost Pennsylvania and Michigan because Democrats there voted for Trump. Imagine someone with Hillary’s personal and professional qualifications, but without the baggage. Who was likable and viewed generally as fairly honest at least. Barack Obama if hr were eligible to run for a third term as President in 2016, I believe beats Trump going away.
What Donald Trump had going for him if that even though America finally broke away from the Great Recession and the economy was firmly strong again, you had millions of blue-collar Caucasian-American voters in the Midwest who weren’t feeling the economic recovery. And if anything were worst off than they were ten years ago. Who saw immigration and perhaps even Latinos and Middle Easterners, as a threat to their way of life. Which is the base of voters that Donald Trump spoke to and claimed to represent. Even though just 6-8 years ago Donald Trump was a damn Yankee from New York City and even a Liberal Democrat (in the real sense, not stereotypical sense) who was friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton and who liked The Kennedy’s.
To go back to the conman part of Donald Trump. Trump was able to sell bag of goods that had probably already expired years ago and was able to sell these people that he represented them and was going to fight for them. And ran this tribalist nationalist campaign of us against them. What they would call the real Americans, against people who hated America, as they would argue. And when you have a section of the country who believes their America is disappearing and your opponent is Hillary Clinton or someone as unpopular as she is and a Democratic Party that rather not vote at all, than to vote for either Hillary or The Donald, a presidential campaign that Trump run can be effective and even win.
When I hear someone tell me that they’re spiritual, but not religious, my first reaction if I’m not smirking is something generally like, “really?”
Someone who is religious believes in a God who is a superhuman controlling power and a belief in something greater than them self.
Someone who is self-described as spiritual, but not religious is someone who believes in the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul, as opposed to material or physical things. Sort of sounds like the definition of a Socialist, but that might be for a different discussion. According to Wikipedia the term spirituality originally developed within early Christianity.
Someone who is religious is also spiritual. I mean, what do you think houses of worship are for. You could be someone who practices a certain religion but doesn’t believe in God or is simply neutral when it comes to God like an Agnostic and be spiritual in that way. There’s this growing movement with young people (meaning Millennial’s) who don’t want to be religious or at least seen as religious with people they hangout with or respect, because they believe those people will think they’re not cool or something, but they also don’t want to be identified as Atheists either. So they try to thread the needle (so to speak) and self-identify as spiritual.
Spirituality is very common and popular with hipsters especially in Hollywood who believe religion is not cool, or at least their followers believe religion is not cool, but they’re not comfortable identifying themselves as Atheists, because they come from religious families or perhaps just don’t want to be known as an Atheist. In case it isn’t obvious, Hollywood is about perception and not reality. Style over substance, which is something that they have in common with politicians.
If someone tells me they’re an Atheist, I can respect that. I mean really, who can honestly actually say they’ve seen God before, let alone met the man. I mean, we don’t see any sightings of Jesus Christ, or Moses, or Allah, except maybe around Halloween.
Its the fundamentalist Atheists who I have a problem with who look down upon people who are religious simply because they’re religious. Or the faux Atheists who claim to be Atheists, but only critique Christianity especially fundamentalist Protestant Christianity because of hard-core stances that Evangelicals take on social issues and bigotry that they show against gays and other religions, women’s place in the world, but never critique other religions that have similar, if not identical stances on the same issues.
Or so-called Atheists who label people as bigots even when they accurately critique Muslims for their regressive views on the same social issues that Evangelicals are known for having. And of course I’m talking about how the so-called politically correct Far-Left went after Bill Maher a few years ago for his stances against Islam. Bill Maher is a real Atheist and doesn’t just call himself to sound cool with hipsters.
I’m an Agnostic myself simply because I don’t know if there is a God or not. As a Liberal I base all my political beliefs as well as non-political beliefs on reason, evidence, and facts. Instead of having faith in some so-called higher being who supposedly always has my best interest at heart. Even though I never met this supposed person. And I’m someone who tends to not have faith in things or people, unless there’s good reason and evidence to have faith. But just because you don’t know that there is a God, doesn’t mean you know there isn’t a God. Which is where I separate from Atheists.
A big problem with America especially with young people (I know I sound like a grandfather now) is faddism. This need to be seen following whatever the current trend is especially with whatever fad young cool people are following. If walking down the street or showing up to work wearing nothing but a t-shirt, underwear, and cowboy boots, became a regular thing with whoever the current hot celebrities are supposed to be, you would see thousands if not millions of young Americans doing the same thing. And we would probably see a spike in the unemployment rate as a result, at least with young adults, because those people would get fired right on the spot for completely breaking the company dress code. Spirituality along with Scientology, is a Hollywood hipster fad and when its no longer seen as cool is when it will disappear. But not a movement that I respect or even take seriously.
At risk of sounding flip here (which I risk almost all the time) I don’t consider myself a Feminist, because I’m a man. I don’t believe you have to be a Feminist to believe that men and women should be treated equally under law and in the private sector and not be punished or rewarded simply because of their gender. I don’t believe you have to be a Feminist to believe in equal rights or equal opportunity. Being a Liberal or just a good intelligent person, is all you have to be to believe in equal opportunity. I’m a Liberal, I believe in liberty and equal rights for all. Men and women, of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. So feminism and equal opportunity to me, aren’t controversial, but commonsense.
Feminism is not controversial, but what’s called radical feminism or what I prefer to call feminine supremacy, this idea that women are simply better than men and therefor women shouldn’t be treated worst or equal than men, but better than men and if you don’t believe in this you’re a women-hating Fascist, this philosophy on the Far-Left in America is obviously very controversial. This idea that men, (well, straight men) are over masculine animals simply looking to conquer women. And that masculinity in itself is a bad thing (unless you’re a man-hating dyke Lesbian, or just a Lesbian) and the reason for all the problems in America and in the world, are because of men and especially Caucasian men especially in America.
So-called radical feminists or what I call feminine supremacists, hate everything that is masculine. They see straight men and straight activities like football, (just to use as an example) as promoting violence in America especially against women. What feminine supremacists don’t seem to understand (and this is just one example) is that maybe 1/2 American football fans are women. You watch an NFL or college football game on TV or go to one and just about every other fan there and some games are women. So I guess a lot of women in America and probably most of them believe in feminism, (not including Ann Coulter) again that men and women should be treated equally, but most American women missed the last train on feminine supremacy and don’t view men and masculinity in general, as some dangerous narcotic that must be wiped out in order to save society.
I know this is a Hollywood movie and everything, but if you are familiar with the 1970 social satire comedy Myra Breckinridge, Raquel Welch plays Myra a former queen Gay man who becomes a woman and not just a women, but what would be called today a radical feminist or what I call a feminine supremacist that saw her job as eliminating everything that is straight and masculine about men. Other than maybe the physical romantic relationships between straight men and women. Myra Breckinridge bombed as badly as a heavy metal concert in Harlem, or a country music festival in Compton, (not that it was a bad movie) but that movie perhaps has served for the 3-5 feminist supremacists who saw the movie as an inspiration for their feminist-supremacist movement in America.
Laura Kinpis described her politics as back in the day at least as a Marxist-Feminist. Well, that makes sense if you look at what’s called radical feminism and what I call feminine-supremacy today. You’re either totally in agreement with them, or you’re part of the enemy and deserved to be destroyed. And have someone on Twitter who stalks you and has a nasty reply to everything that you tweet. Maybe if someone of these female-supremacists got a job and went to work, they would have less time for Twitter and our unemployment rate would go down even further.
Apparently Laura Kinpis has moderated from Marxist to just being a mainstream Socialist-Feminist, who believes in equality and complete redistribution, but not supremacy. Which goes to show you that there’s hope for all radicals in America. If they just cut back on their caffeine intake, try to find hobbies outside of social media and looking at every radical article that is published and do this old fashion thing of thinking for yourself and looking at the world for how it really is and what people really believe. Instead of what the latest hot political celebrity is telling them as some type of God and viewing every word that person says as the golden truth who can never be wrong about anything.
As as Liberal myself I hate the term bleeding heart liberal, because someone who cares about others and people who are suffering regardless of their politics could be labeled bleeding hearts. Now, these different political factions will have their own ideas and approaches in how to help people who are suffering. But to care about the suffering of others all you have to be is a caring person.
But thats not my only problem with the term bleeding heart liberal. Because then there also the stereotypes that come with that term. Liberals all the time even though I believe that is finally starting to change with Socialists in America like the Bernie Sanders democratic socialist movement and the ANTIFA more communist or anarchist socialist movement on the radical Far-Left and not just Far-Left, but Liberals in the past at least have been labeled as soft, to put it lightly.
I would add the term pussies, because so-called Liberals seem to believe that criminals shouldn’t be put in prison, even if they’re violent. As non-aggressive pacifists that even if the country was under attacked we shouldn’t fight back and instead extend out hands to the people who are trying to literally destroy us.
Imagine if Dennis Kucinich was President of the United States during the Cold War and Russia literally attacked us and bombed Florida or some other big place in America. President Kucinich, “if we just talk to Moscow, maybe they won’t bomb all of Florida and we’ll only lose Miami. If we fight back, maybe they won’t bomb Georgia as well.”
There’s nothing liberal or bleeding heart about pacifism about when your country is under attack and you choose not to defend yourself. No political label goes with that amount of irresponsibility and softness. Even Socialists have defended themselves and fought for their countries. And just like you don’t have to be a Conservative or someone further to the Right to believe in self-defense and patriotism, you don’t have to be a Liberal or someone further left to care about the suffering of others.
I guess this article is supposed to have something to do with the great Norman Lear. Perhaps the title of the piece has something to do with that suggesting that he’s a bleeding heart Conservative. Norman Lear describes his politics as conservative because he believes in conserving the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution. Which is what true Conservative is and actually believes. Not someone who believes in sending law enforcement agents to break into private homes to break up extra marital or homosexual affairs affairs, because the so-called Conservative believes that adultery and homosexuality, are not only immoral, but should be illegal.
Imagine if Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore ever becomes President of the United States and his able to get appoint and get confirm 3-4 Christian-Conservatives who are actually Christian-Theocrats, to the U.S. Supreme Court , then maybe adultery and homosexuality would get outlawed in America. If they were somehow able to get those laws passed out of Congress regardless if with party or party’s are in control of the House and Senate.
But someone who is so fundamentalist with their religious beliefs to the point that they believe should be appointed Minister of the United States and be able legally punish people who disagree with them and have different moral values, is not a Conservative, but a theocrat which is different. Norman Lear’s conservative politics represents conservatism, pure and simple. Roy Moore’s politics represents Christian-Theocracy, which is very different, because Moore’s politics aren’t about the U.S. Constitution, but a very strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.
Norman Lear’s writing and producing of comedy in America, is so cutting edge and his belief in the First Amendment is so fundamentalist (not that there’s anything wrong with that) that I don’t believe he could be writing and producing comedy today. Because people in and outside of Hollywood are so dominated by political correctness that if Lear created a modern Archie Bunker (perhaps played by Donald Trump) maybe Jon Voight, or Phil Robertson (from Duck Dynasty) you would see the Political Correctness Police and Army, marching the streets complaining about how bigoted the new Archie Bunker, All in The Family, and even Norman Lear is. Of course they would be wrong, but these protests and boycotts would have a big enough affect to keep that type of First Amendment comedy and programming from making it on the air or into the theaters.
I’m not a doctor and don’t pretend be one, but from what I know about the medical profession (which might only be enough to fill one paragraph) is that good doctors at least don’t try to fix the problems without first performing a diagnosis. They actually take the time to see what is the medical problem with the patient before they try to fix the problem. People get wrong prescriptions because their doctors given them the wrong diagnosis and recommend a prescription that might fix another problem, but not the problem that this patient is facing. People get even sicker or see their physical conditions worsen simply because their original problem wasn’t diagnosed properly and therefor not effectively treated.
Giving someone an aspirin to deal with a broken ankle might give the patient short-term pain relief, but still leaving the ankle broken and perhaps it even gets worst because the patient believes their ankle is recovering. That would be an example of an extreme misdiagnosis. Maybe the doctor was drunk when they looked at the patent’s ankle, or perhaps examined the head by accident, before recommending aspirin for the pain. But hopefully you get the idea.
Another way to look at failures and weaknesses lets say is from the perspective of an addict. Lets use alcoholic as an example. I’m not an alcoholic either, but from what I’ve read and even seem to some extent that the only way an alcoholic can recover is first acknowledging that they have a problem that they’re indeed an alcoholic. They drink too much alcohol, get drunk too much and perhaps to the point that being drunk is a normal condition for them. Which I guess would be an extreme form of alcoholism. So my only point here is to before you try to fix a problem or personal problems that you might have, you first have to diagnose the problem and know what the problem is. Once you’ve accomplished step a, you can work to addressing the problem with a recovery plan.
Right-wing author and radio talk show host Eric Metaxas who I agree with as often as Los Angeles sees snow in August, but who was on BookTV on C-SPAN in I believe September (some of us actually have hobbies outside of realty TV and social media and like to use our brains) made a good point about mistakes and even screw ups. And he essentially said that we’re all screw ups. Thats not the question or the issue. The question and issue is what do we do about them.
Do we ignore them and not learn from history and keep repeating the same mistakes and seeing our problems get worst? “Those who don’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.” Or do we acknowledge them, take them in and even absorb them and memorize that feeling to the point that it feels so bad not that we don’t want to be consumed by it and let our failures run our lives, but that we know the feeling of failure so well that we don’t want to feel like that again. Not about being pessimist or overly optimistic, but being in touched with reality so we know exactly what’s going on so we know what to do about it.
John F. Kennedy is a political hero of mine, but one of the biggest reasons why is that he always challenged Americans to think and try to improve and move forward. Challenge the status quo not necessarily because the status quo was bad itself, but that we wanted us to be as good as we possibly can be. Which is one of my broad points here is that we all make mistakes and maybe Eric Metaxas isn’t completely right here and that we’re not all screw ups. I mean, if we were we would be nation of very stupid weak people who can’t seem to get anything right.
But Metaxas is right about at least one thing that we all screw up. And then the question becomes what was the mistake exactly and then figuring out what can be done about it. Unless you killed someone, including yourself and you’re not permanently paralyzed or are hurt so badly that you’ve been given a death sentence and will die in the short-term, whatever mistake you made there is a recovery plan to fix it. Or at least learn from it and do better in the future.
I’ll just leave you with this. For almost every problem short of killing someone and permanently paralyzing yourself, there’s a solution to that problem. It then becomes once you acknowledge that you have a problem and know what the problem is. For every mistake there’s a correction. Including horrible mistakes like running your business into the ground and going bankrupt, or making horrible investments that also lead to high debt and perhaps bankruptcy.
The alcoholism example is perfect here. Once you realize you are indeed an alcoholic and have a real problem there, you then can get treatment for it and recover. People have screwed up so badly in one profession that they can’t find any more work in that profession, but recover from that and prosper working in a different field. Take former White House Counsel John Dean who was part of President Nixon’s Watergate coverup who is now a successful author and columnist. A very successful writer now even though he was disbarred as a lawyer.
Step a, is acknowledging that you have a problem.
Step b, is knowing exactly what your problem is.
Step c, is putting together a recovery plan to fix the problem.
Step d, learning from your mistakes not to get overwhelmed by them, but so you know what went wrong and not to repeat the same mistakes. And then improving yourself so you do better in the future. Not about making mistakes in life. Of course we all do and perhaps have all made a lot of mistakes. The question is what do we do about them. Do we learn from them so we can do better in the future. Or ignore them and continue to repeat our negative history.
Now that I think about it and this Newsweek article that was written by David Friend contributed to it and even though he didn’t argue this himself, but the more I think about it the 1990s is the decade when Liberals won the Cultural War. Because there was one scandal after another both in politics and government, but in entertainment as well and yet America survived it and we prospered so much as a country in that decade with the end of the Cold War and the economic boom of that decade thanks to new trade, new technology, the deficit coming down and actually leading to a balanced budget by 1998. (Ask a Millennial what a balanced budget is and they’ll tell you its a budget where everything is spent equally, because they’ve never seen one before) And a lot of Americans perhaps especially my Generation X, but Baby Boomers decided as a generation and country that its OK.
So what if a politician sleeps with women they’re not married to and cheats on their wives. Thats bad for their wives and their children, but that doesn’t affect me and its not my business anyway. Which I believe was the attitude about all of these scandals where it didn’t involve people actually getting physically hurt or falsely accused. We go from the King of Tabloids who was Donald Trump (yes, the same man) in New York and all of his affairs with other women when he was married with kids at the time, to Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas who just happened to be running for President in 1991-92 and one famous affair that he had in that time period of the late 1980s and early 1990s with Gennifer Flowers.
To entertainment celebrities like Tommy Lee (from Motley Crew) and actress Pam Anderson and they having their sexual affair literally in public and making a video about it. O.J. Simpson was a real true crime story with two real murders involved and in that sense at least was a real story with real significance. Ao in that extent at least it was a serious story. But it was a tabloid story because of the main character involved, the other serious characters involved and where the story took place which was Los Angeles.
But go from the mid 1990s to the late 1990s and again with Bill Clinton who in many ways was a Hollywood character the John F. Kennedy with the cameras always on him with reporters writing down everything they hear and find out about him, but then reporting it, unlike with JFK. With the Jack Stanton character from the movie Primary Colors (played by John Travolta) almost seeming too real. To Bill Clinton’s last sex scandal from the 1990s involving him and a White House intern in Monica Lewinsky who is only two years older than me and 27 years younger than Bill Clinton obviously young enough to be his daughter.
But if that doesn’t seem to be a big enough Hollywood story for you, how about the Speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich who made it a priority of his to remove President Bill Clinton from the White House (one way or another) and was President Clinton’s biggest critic of the 1990s, as well as one of his best partners as far as the legislation they were able to pass together in that divided government and continually bashed the President as being immoral for his sex scandals especially the Lewinsky scandal, gets caught having an affair with his secretary while he was married to another women. Newt Gingrich winning the title of Hypocrite in-chief. He closest he would ever come to being President.
America goes through all these scandals, the Christian-Right in America which has had more of their own share of sex scandals and other scandals in America (Jim Bakker, Jim Swaggart, etc) and yet they reach their highest point in America as far as political power and having a veto voice inside the Republican Party as far as where they have to be politically and get to decide its presidential nominees. The Republican Party wins complete control of Congress of 1994 winning back the House for the first time since 1953 which they would hold onto until 2007 and win back the Senate in 1994 that they would hold onto until 2001. Plus the GOP would hold at least 30 governorships and a majority of state legislatures in the mid and late 1990s and would hold all of that power other than losing the Senate in 2001 and win back the presidency in 2001, until the late 2000s when Democrats finally won back the House and Senate in 2006.
With all of this political power moving to the Right and even Far-Right in the 1990s, Americans as a people and I believe with Generation X completely coming of age in the 1990s being a big factor of this, we essentially decided as a country, so what! So what if free adults have consensual affairs with people other than their spouses. Thats a matter between them and their families. Not something that should be decided by government certainly and shouldn’t cost people their jobs even in public office simply because they’re in loyal spouses.
I believe the 1990s gave rise to gay rights movement of the 2000s, and movements that opposed the War on Drugs, privacy thanks to the War on Terror in the 2000s, becoming a big issue and concern with the belief that government was becoming big government in our personal lives. The Culture War was ending in the 1990s because of everything that we went through as a country and people being able to see all of these individual scandals that in the 1950s would have ruined most Americans if those scandals were made public and in many cases people would have faced serious legal consequences for them even if they were private and consensual.
Americans saw these scandals and saw a lot of people behaving badly and irresponsibly, but deciding that those affairs aren’t mind and people weren’t getting hurt physically, financially, or being falsely libeled because of what someone did to them, this is not something that I should be personally concern with. And just let the people who were affected by this personal behavior decide for themselves what and if should be done about it. Instead of big government stepping in.
A Fever in The Blood is a picture of courtroom drama and political cinema, intrigue, and ambition. You have three powerful influential ambitious men who want to be the next governor of their state, which is never named in the movie. A sitting city judge, (played by Efrem Zimbalist) a district attorney, (played by Jack Kelly) and a sitting U.S. Senator. (Played by Don Ameche) And while all of this is going on you have high profile murder case involving a successful local businessman and his separated dead wife. With the husband being accused of the crime.
And you also have the adorable, gorgeous, and sexy Angie Dickinson, who has a smaller but very important character in the movie as the wife of Senator Alex Simon (played by Don Ameche) who is more interested in Judge Leland Hoffman (played by Efrem Zimbalist) and sees her husband as too power hungry and ambitious, as well as somewhat shady. I mean the cast and characters alone should get you interested in this movie. Unless you just hate courtroom dramas and fictional political films.
You have this local murder case in an unknown city with the District Attorney Dan Callahan (played by Jack Kelly) deciding to prosecute the case himself instead of assigning the case to one his top deputies. Because again Callahan wants to be governor of this mysterious state that will go nameless simply because it is never announced what state this movie takes place in. You have Judge Leland Hoffman who only gets this case assigned to him because he does his own wheeling and dealing ( I hate that expression) And Senator Alex Simon who is probably the favorite going into to win his unknown party’s nomination for governor, but knows this murder case could be the boost that his top two opponents need to win the nomination. And actually ends up bribing Judge Hoffman in the Judge’s office to let the case go.
There’s a lot of backroom inside politics in this movie. That any great high profile drama has. The movie is also over two-hours but more than worth the time to watch it. Especially if you just like seeing Angie Dickinson in a great movie and she’s had several. Not a movie for people simply looking for romantic comedies and softball humor. There’s a good deal of humor in this movie, but a lot of that involves Don Ameche, as well as how Jack Kelly and Efrem Zimbalist in the courtroom. With the District Attorney accusing the Judge of ruling against him for political reasons. Great movie for political junkies such as myself but also for people who like courtroom dramas and even soap operas.
As far as Frank Sinatra. When you’re worth hundreds of millions of dollars which is probably what Frank Sinatra was worth in today’s money back in the 1950s and 1960s, you don’t believe you live on top of the world. You believe you own the world and that anything you want you just get by asking or ordering it. You meet and work with a beautiful adorable brunette like Joan Collins with a great sense of humor and decide you want to have dinner with her that night. Why would the fact that you are currently in Hamburg Germany and Joan is probably 1000 miles or so away in England get in the way with you getting together with her that night?
You own your own plane and can just send it to her and pick her up and fly her back to Germany where you’re currently working. You’re not just perhaps the most popular singer in the world, but you’re a Hollywood star in films. Why would the fact that Joan Collins has an early call the next morning affect whether you two can get together that night? You just call your friend at Joan’s studio where she’s working for and tell him that she will be late the next morning because she’s having dinner with you in Germany.
That is how Frank Sinatra was probably thinking back then and what Joan did according to this interview was turn him down. And as Joan put it Frank Sinatra didn’t handle rejection real well because he wasn’t accustomed to being rejected. I mean rejecting Frank Sinatra could cost you. Jack and Bobby Kennedy rejected Frank in the early 60s by not going out to his home in California and instead going to Bing Crosby’s on a trip out there and Frank never forgave Bobby for that.
As far as Mae West. Joan Collins has this famous quote that age is just a number. If I had to guess I would say that quote is actually Mae West’s quote. Myra Breckinridge which was originally written by Gore Vidal comes out as a film in 1970 with Raquel Welch playing Myra and Mae West is in that movie. She’s already in her eighties at that point and could’ve actually been Frank Sinatra’a mother as far as years, perhaps Joan Collins grandmother and yet she’s still performing and singing in that movie and playing a sex goddess who wants to bring young sexy men up to her penthouse. The woman has a bed in her office in that movie. A woman who is already in her eighties.
As far as Marilyn Monroe. Joan is obviously right that gorgeous blondes aren’t taken seriously in Hollywood. Nothing new to report there. Lauren Bacall and Ingrid Bergman would be exceptions to that because they both showed early on in their careers that they had to be taken seriously and it would cost the studios money if they weren’t taken seriously, because those two women were both very intelligent and knew how to take care of themselves and how the business worked and what they were worth and meant to the movie industry. Marilyn Monroe wasn’t a dumb blonde, but was certainly immature and overly adorable both in appearance and personality and was probably used and taken advantage of as a result. And treated like a little girl.