Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Susan Sarandom on Hillary Clinton and Life from The Guardian

.





Susan Sarandon: ‘I thought Hillary was very dangerous. If she'd won, we'd be at war’

Once the bete noire of the right, now the actor finds herself even more hated by the left for refusing to support Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump. She talks about Hollywood sexism, female empowerment and playing Bette Davis



Susan Sarandon at 71 is bright-eyed and airy, and perhaps shyer than she can publicly seem. When I walk into the room – a private members’ club in downtown New York, where she sits with a small dog at her feet – she doesn’t say hello or make eye-contact, giving what I suspect is a false impression of rudeness. It may also be that she is uncertain of her reception. For a long time Sarandon was despised by the right, her protests against the Vietnam war and US aggression in Nicaragua and Iraq making her the kind of target that, for progressives, is an affirmation of sorts. Her latest unpopularity, by contrast, comes exclusively from the left and is much tougher on Sarandon. “I’m not attacked from the right at all,” she will tell me. Instead, she is accused of not checking her white privilege, of throwing away her vote on a third-party candidate (the Green party nominee, Jill Stein) during the US presidential election, and of recklessly espousing a political cause that let Trump in through the backdoor. Liberals in the US, it seems, can summon more hatred for Sarandon right now than they can for Paul Ryan.

Most infuriating of all, to her critics, is that she won’t admit her error. Sarandon’s very physiognomy suggests defiance; she looks indignant even at rest. She also looks a lot like Bette Davis, so much so that Davis herself, in her dotage, approached Sarandon to play her. That project never happened, but in the new eight-part Ryan Murphy series Feud: Bette and Joan, about the battle for Hollywood supremacy between Davis and Joan Crawford, Sarandon gets her chance. The two leads are terrific: Jessica Lange, by turns monstrous and pathetic as Crawford; Sarandon steelier, smarter, less obviously vulnerable. She sees a lot of similarities between herself and Davis. “We’re both east coast,” she says. “I didn’t consider myself a star; I was a character actor from the very beginning and not really sold as pretty, which is probably what’s allowed me to survive as long as I have. I have this broader phase.”


Sarandon as Bette Davis and Jessica Lange as Joan Crawford in Feud: Bette and Joan. Photograph: FX

Sarandon is working well beyond the age at which women in Hollywood’s golden era could expect to carry on – “besides playing witches and bitches,” she says. The interesting thing about Feud is that it tells an unavoidably feminist story about two women who would have abhorred that particular term. A few years ago, Sarandon herself said: “I think of myself as a humanist because I think it’s less alienating to people who think of feminism as being a load of strident bitches.”

“And then suddenly it became OK to say feminist,” she says now. “That’s been very recent. There was a period when that wasn’t really happening. So now there’s been an opportunity to include men as allies. And I have to say, I remember going to the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment] march where there were 100,000 women and we were going around talking to senators for this vote and I got on the elevator, and the women were like: ‘We’re going to show them what the fuck we want.’ And I kept saying: ‘Calm down, that’s not the way we’re going to get things done.’”

You thought it was counterproductive to be that angry? “It was counterproductive, clearly. But that image of the shrill woman became the definition of a feminist for a long time. And women had a right to be angry, and to feel empowered. But that was just one glimpse of a fairly emotional and strident definition, and there was a period when young women didn’t want that label.”

And now? “It’s come back, and it’s gotten warped, especially with the election, where if you’re a woman you have to support Hillary Clinton.”

Now, of course, no one in Sarandon’s industry would get caught dead having a flaky opinion on sexism in Hollywood. Still, the actor is cautious. One gets the feeling that the Harvey Weinstein business simply isn’t very interesting to Sarandon, that there are other causes – the Keystone pipeline, fracking, oil and gas money in politics – that she considers more urgent. She is no apologist for the Weinsteins of this world, but she can, at times, sound positively libertarian about where the responsibilities of the women involved lie.


Sarandon listens to Bernie Sanders campaigning in Iowa, Jan 2016. Photograph: Chris Carlson/AP

“There are a lot of people who did say no,” she says. “I think the big question here is that if Harvey Weinstein exposed himself to you when you were on a yacht in Cannes and you told everybody – this is Angie Everhart’s story – and everyone said: ‘Well, that’s just Harvey’ and it wasn’t a big deal – those are the people who are perpetuating it, too. Now, I’m sure there’s a lot of men who were much smoother at seducing than-” she bursts out laughing – “James Toback and Harvey Weinstein, who a lot of women felt very flattered to be sleeping with, even if they didn’t get the job. There’s just a culture, starting in the 60s and 70s, where there was a certain amount of liberation that made it possible for those things to happen without even seeing yourself as a victim.”

One of the questions currently being asked is whether what Sarandon describes – the inability of many women even to conceptualise themselves as victims – is a function of “liberation” or internalised misogynistic denial. For Sarandon’s part, nothing post-Weinstein has made her reassess her own past. “Certainly, I experienced both having people come on to me and being told that I wasn’t interesting enough to get a part, or sexual enough, once they found out I was married,” she says. She also admits she was lucky; that, unlike many of the women coming forward today, Sarandon’s resolve was never put to the test. “In my case, I just said no, in many clumsy, stupid ways, but the people didn’t push on. They didn’t show up in my room. They didn’t corner me, or batter me, or get on top of me. It was an invitation: ‘Yeah, why don’t you spend the night now that you’re here in the middle of nowhere on location?’ And I said: ‘No, I gotta get back to my room.’ But I didn’t feel super offended, because it wasn’t a thing that became super difficult.”

There were other hard things. “I remember another really famous actress saying to me: ‘Well, don’t have children because that’ll really change the parts that you’ll be available for. And you won’t work past 40 anyway.’ And a lot of that has changed. And a lot of women are assessing how they feel; were they victimised or did they feel that it was their own choice?”

There is no question, she believes, that there are more choices today and that this is slowly correcting the imbalance of power. “More and more women are able to greenlight their own projects. My last few films have had women directors – they’re not the big blockbusters, but I’m not sure those big blockbusters are very interesting to direct. But there is definitely more power in the hands of women than there was – the Reese Witherspoons, who are getting books, putting together projects, telling women’s stories. I think that’s where the difference is. The culture itself is ... it’s a tricky thing because you are selling yourself using sex, and your looks, for the most part. And I think that when you have these men in positions of power, they assume that [sex] goes along with it. And until you get women to have an economic power base – I mean, look at Brit Marling’s article [in the Atlantic], where she talks about being able to walk out of an uncomfortable situation with Harvey even though she hated herself for going in the first place, because she knew she could write and produce and direct. So when people see themselves as having their own power base, it becomes imaginable that you could turn somebody down and still survive.”


With Geena Davis in Thelma And Louise, 1991. Photograph: c.MGM/Everett/REX

It is often overlooked that in 2001, Sarandon supported Hillary Clinton’s run for the Senate. There are photos of them posing chummily together, grinning. Then Clinton voted for the war in Iraq and it all went downhill. During the last election, Sarandon supported Bernie Sanders, then wouldn’t support Clinton after she won the nomination, and now all the moderates hate her, to the extent, she says, that she had to change her phone number because people she identifies as Hillary trolls sent her threatening messages. “I got from Hillary people ‘I hope your crotch is grabbed’, ‘I hope you’re raped’. Misogynistic attacks. Recently, I said ‘I stand with Dreamers’ [children brought illegally to the US, whose path to legal citizenship – an Obama-era provision – Trump has threatened to revoke] and that started another wave.”

Wait, from the right?

“No, from the left! ‘How dare you! You who are responsible for this!’”
I ask if she’s aware that Katha Pollitt recently called her an idiot in the New York Review of Books and she looks momentarily taken aback. “I’m flattered,” she says. These people are furious with you, I say.

“Well, that’s why we’re going to lose again if we depend on the DNC [the Democratic National Committee]. Because the amount of denial ... I mean it’s very flattering to think that I, on my own, cost the election. That my little voice was the deciding factor.”

Is it upsetting to be attacked?

“It’s upsetting to me more from the point of view of thinking they haven’t learned. I don’t need to be vindicated.”

But it’s upsetting that they’re still feeding the same misinformation to people. When Obama got the nomination, 25% of [Hillary’s] people didn’t vote for him. 
Only 12% of Bernie’s people didn’t vote for her.”

But she didn’t advocate voting for Hillary! Come on.

“Hmm?”

Didn’t she advocate voting for Jill Stein?

“I didn’t advocate people voting for anything. I said get your information, I’m going to vote for change, because I was hoping that Stein was going to get whatever percentage she needed – but I knew she wasn’t going to make the difference in the election.”


Sarandon with Cher and Michelle Pfeiffer in The Witches of Eastwick, 1987. Photograph: Allstar/Cinetext/WARNER BROS

Does she have any sympathy with the critique that casting a protest vote is the luxury of those insulated from the effects of a Trump presidency? “It wasn’t a protest vote. Following Bernie wasn’t a protest.” Voting for Jill Stein was, by any definition, a protest vote. “Well, I knew that New York was going to go [for Hillary]. It was probably the easiest place to vote for Stein. Bringing attention to working-class issues is not a luxury. People are really hurting; that’s how this guy got in. What we should be discussing is not the election, but how we got to the point where Trump was the answer.” (We should also, she says, inching towards the space where the extreme right meets the left, be discussing how “you can’t judge by the mainstream media what’s going on in the country. How did we lose all our journalists and media?”)

Has she lost friends over all this? “No. My friends have a right to their opinions. It’s disappointing but that’s their business. It’s like in the lead-up to Vietnam, and then later they say: ‘You were right.’ Or strangely, some of my gay friends were like: ‘Oh, I just feel bad for [Clinton]. And I said: ‘She’s not authentic. She’s been terrible to gay people for the longest time. She’s an opportunist.’ And then I’m like: ‘OK, let’s not talk about it any more.’”

Still, I think while there was vast political error on both sides, the inability of Sarandon and her ilk to embrace the lesser of two evils permitted the greater of the two evils to rise. And yet I like Sarandon. It takes real courage to go against the mob. Her inconsistencies are a little wild, but in the age of social-media enforced conformity, I have never met anyone so uninterested in toeing the line.
Did she really say that Hillary was more dangerous than Trump?

“Not exactly, but I don’t mind that quote,” she says. “I did think she was very, very dangerous. We would still be fracking, we would be at war [if she was president]. It wouldn’t be much smoother. Look what happened under Obama that we didn’t notice.”

It seems absurd to argue that healthcare, childcare, taxation for the non-rich wouldn’t be better now under President Clinton, and that’s before we get to the threat of deportation hanging over millions of immigrants. “She would’ve done it the way Obama did it,” says Sarandon, “which was sneakily. He deported more people than have been deported now. How he got the Nobel peace prize I don’t know. I think it was very important to have a black family in the White House and I think some of the stuff he did was good. He tried really hard about healthcare. But he didn’t go all the way because of big pharma.”

It’s tempting to read some of Sarandon’s fervour as a reaction against her own family’s Republicanism – during the Bush years, her now 94-year old-mother was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly, and encouraged to speculate on where she went wrong with her daughter. (Sarandon’s mother would probably have voted for Trump, she says, but “I don’t think she got out to vote.” She smiles. “We didn’t facilitate that.”)

All of which makes the actor’s position on feminism more puzzling. Sarandon is close to her three children – Eva Amurri, whom she had with the Italian film-maker Franco Amurri, and Miles and Jack, her two sons with her former partner of 23 years, Tim Robbins, with whom she is reportedly on good terms. It was her daughter, Eva, who as a teenager didn’t like the word feminism, says Sarandon, because “it seemed redundant to have to say you were a feminist”.

But it wasn’t.

“No, but she grew up in a house where she had a mother who earned her own money and was powerful and she’s in a progressive city, with other progressive kids – she wasn’t even exposed to the more Republican part of Manhattan. So she was in a progressive bubble. I think the secret is maybe now we have to just say no one is going to fix it for you. It’s up to you to fix it. You have the strength. You shouldn’t turn to be validated by anyone, male or female. You carry your power within you, and if you surround yourself with people who respect you, that will happen, be they male or female.” It is a strange statement from someone who believes that structural inequality requires political solutions. Earlier, she makes the point that Clinton’s refusal to back the $15 minimum wage, “tells you she’s not a feminist, when 50% of the households in America are headed by women.” Clinton espoused a $12 minimum wage, with scope to raise it to $15 in metropolitan centres, but that’s not the point. The point is self-validation doesn’t pay the rent.)

After the interview, we leave the club and walk towards the subway. “What was her name?” she says. “In the magazine?”

“Katha Pollitt,” I say. We part at the corner of Seventh Avenue and Sarandon disappears up the street, dog under one arm, hat pulled low, assistant at her elbow. “Will I get a load more hatred when this article comes out?” she shouts, looking back over her shoulder.

“Probably,” I say. I have a hunch she can take it.

Feud: Bette and Joan starts on BBC Two on Saturday 16 December at 9pm. The full series will be available on BBC iPlayer from 10.45pm that evening. 
  • This article was amended on 27 November 2017. Jill Stein was the Green party presidential nominee, not an independent.

Since you’re here …
… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.
I appreciate there not being a paywall: it is more democratic for the media to be available for all and not a commodity to be purchased by a few. I’m happy to make a contribution so others with less means still have access to information.Thomasine F-R.
If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps fund it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as $1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.


Thursday, November 23, 2017

Happy Thanksgiving from The Coltons Point Times

 .



Today is Thanksgiving, a national holiday, yet many people have no idea of the history of the holiday. Those of you living around Coltons Point should know this history as it began around the colonial days, exactly 155 years after the colonists landed here, the oldest continuous settlement in the original thirteen colonies.



Now not to overlook the Spaniards, they did hold some form of Thanksgiving celebrations in Saint Augustine in 1565, then San Elceario (near today's El Paso) but neither was part of the original colonies. In 1619 Virginia colonists held such a feast and in 1621 the Plymouth, Massachusetts colonists held such a feast but this was before the founding of the nation and they were not annual traditions.



After the founding of the United States the first holiday was declared by President George Washington, a religious feast to thank the "providence of Almighty God" for his help. Still, it was not designated a national holiday but states were encouraged to participate.



Of course George was born directly across the river from Coltons Point and when younger he walked this area as a surveyor.



George Washington

As President, on October 3, 1789, George Washington made the following proclamation and created the first Thanksgiving Day designated by the national government of the United States of America:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.



The national holiday came during the darkest hours of the Civil War when Lincoln was president. The year was 1863, and it was the bloodiest days of the Civil War. It followed the battles of Vicksburg and Gettysburg and Lincoln's trip to Gettysburg to honor the most soldiers killed in one battle in our history, Lincoln, heartbroken by what he had seen at Gettysburg, may have used Thanksgiving as a time to give the people to reflect and hope. He was not a publicly religious man, but he used his Thanksgiving proclamation to find humility and gratitude, and to remember how richly blessed we as a nation really were despite everything. His proclamation was one of the first times he used strong religious overtones in his public speech.



Abraham Lincoln

In the middle of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln, prompted by a series of editorials written by Sarah Josepha Hale, proclaimed a national Thanksgiving Day, to be celebrated on the final Thursday in November 1863:

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe had enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years, with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-eighth."

Proclamation of President Abraham Lincoln, October 3, 1863.

Since 1863, Thanksgiving has been observed annually in the United States.



I hope you all join me in Thanksgiving, honoring the Almighty God as Washington and Lincoln told us, and honoring our sons and daughters around the world defending our right to be free.



Now, for your delight, here are all the presidents since Roosevelt with their Thanksgiving turkey.

FDR
 

Truman
Ike
JFK
Johnson
Nixon
Ford

Rosalynn filled in for Jimmy
He was busy hunting turkeys
Is he the turkey?
Reagan first to officially pardon turkey
Bush Sr
Clinton
Bush Jr
Obama
Trump
 .

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

The American Two-Party System - The Roots of Polarization




Did you ever wonder how a nation as powerful as America could be dependent on only two political parties to the exclusion of anyone who disagrees with them? Well it was not always that way. In fact there were no political parties back when we tossed out the English. Perhaps this history of the two party system will help you understand why it evolved and how it might have failed to meet the needs of today.

Following the publication of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and before the successful resolution of the War for Independence (1783), the American colonies decided it would be best to "confederate," at least for the purposes of entering into strategic alliances with European powers and perhaps waging war again with the mother country. This gave the U.S. the Articles of Confederation (1781), the first constitution of the "United States.” But the Articles were soon deemed inadequate and another Constitutional Convention was called (1787) which resulted in the U.S. Constitution (1789). But not without a fight.


The “Federalists” were of course instrumental in the movement for the new U.S. Constitution and for a stronger Federal role. The so-called Anti-Federalists were concerned that this new Federal government might over-power the states' sovereignties and abridge individual citizens' rights (most states had a long and proud history of individual rights). The passage of the Bill of Rights, as a permanent limit to the powers of the Federal government, answered much of that argument. Nonetheless, the struggle between a strong Federal government and state sovereignties has been an important thread in the play of our two-party system from the very beginning.

From that beginning in 1789, the U.S. didn't have a two-party system; it had George Washington, a President without a party. During his two terms, a rivalry grew between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both Federalists. Jefferson challenged Adams under the banner of the Democratic-Republican party. Interesting that this first real party, alone, should contain the nominal seeds of the present two-party system. The word Democratic implies will of the people, the word Republican implies rule of law (protection from a potential tyranny of the majority). The (mostly aristocratic and Virginian) Democratic-Republicans kept the Presidency from 1800 through 1828.


In 1828, the popular war-hero Andrew Jackson became the first President from a new party, the Democrats, the true party “of the people." With the exception of one term when the Whigs (a party whose name more clearly identified itself as the party of privilege than the Democratic-Republicans whom they replaced) won the Presidency, the Democrats held the White House until 1860.

The Northern Abolitionist Movement gave birth to a new party (1856), the Republicans. Abraham Lincoln was their first successful candidate for President (1860). The Northern, anti-slavery and pro-business Republicans held the White House thru 1912, with the exception of the Democrat Grover Cleveland's two non-consecutive terms. 1864 really marks the beginning of the two-party system of Democrats and Republicans. From the beginning, the Republicans have been Northern and pro-business, the Democrats Southern and more populist. Woodrow Wilson was the only other Democratic President besides Cleveland before the Great Depression. So, for all intents and purposes, the Republicans held Presidential power for 72 years but for 16 Democratic years.


The Great Depression (1929 and forward) changed all that. As business had so completely failed the people, the party of the people, the Democrats, under Franklin Roosevelt, won the support of the majority of the voters. Indeed, they kept power through 1968 except for the two terms of Dwight Eisenhower, who won his elections not for his politics but for his stature as a war-hero. Pretty much the Democrats (FDR, JFK, LBJ) successfully defined themselves as the party of the people, of the poor and middle class, and of the large and growing labor movement.

The Republicans were pretty much forced to redefine themselves, not as the party of privilege but as the party of individual and states’ rights, and of tax cuts and reduced government spending. But this didn't win them elections (nor did it represent their real values). Most Americans since FDR have identified themselves as Democrats, a natural thing as most Americans are not wealthy. Ever since 1932, the Republicans have only won the Presidency when their candidate was more personable and more “Presidential,” not because of his positions on the issues. Poll after poll for the last 70 years show Americans identify with Democratic positions even when they elect a Republican. TV has been a potent force in this phenomenon, as has the increasing role of religion and ignorance in the American political scene.


The nature of the parties' differences has altered dramatically, if not fundamentally, since 1864. The initial differences were over slavery and industrialism and the dominance of the South (poorer and less populous) by the North. The differences in the 1890's, following a Depression, were over a Gold standard and whether debts were to be repaid by cheaper or more dear money. In the 1910's, party differences centered around isolationism and fighting World War I. In the 1930's, again following the start of a Depression, the Democrats became the party of the people and of the Labor Movement while the Republicans were seen as the party of the Wealthy.

Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, then, the parties have divided the electorate, for better or for worse, along economic class lines. How then, you ask, have the Republicans been able to win any national elections at all, as they are the party of the Sheriff of Nottingham, not the party of Robin Hood? The reason is not hard to see. The rise of the Independents, now larger than the registration of either major party, began during the Viet Nam era and has accelerated ever since.


Both parties have lost their identity and lost their commitment to principles long held sacred.  As the voter had a more difficult time distinguishing between the two, neither party could dominate as split power between the parties provided a viable check and balance for the people.

While the more aggressive conservatives in the Republican party, Liberals in the Democratic party, and Libertarians in the loose confederation of the Tea party get all the media attention, in truth all three are fighting it out for control of the middle ground in political philosophy.


Today America can be found where the conservative and liberal philosophies blend in the middle, where fiscal responsibility and limited federal government embrace certain social obligations while rejecting other social issues.  America is not about class separation and philosophical polarization, it is about individual freedom and equal opportunity.  Neither party holds the key to such a goal. 

No Republican wants to starve the poor or cut benefits for the elderly any more than a Democrat wants to wipe out the upper class or take over big business. The very concept of such thought is promulgated by the news media to increase TV ratings, sell advertising or sell newspapers. Oh yeah, and also to help all the news "contributors" and political pundits sell their latest book telling us what is wrong with our country but only from their perspective.

So that is an entirely over-simplification of the history and evolution of the two party system and it will hopefully give you some insight into how we got in our current mess.  Getting out may take a lot more work than we hoped.
.

CPT Spirits in the Sky - David Cassidy - Born to Entertain

.
I Think I Love You




David Cassidy, Former Teen Idol and 'Partridge Family' Star, Dies at 67
6:02 PM PST 11/21/2017 by Mike Barnes , Lauren Huff


He emerged from the 1970s ABC show as a recording star and concert sensation, singing on hits like "I Think I Love You" and "Come On Get Happy."

You are Always on My Mind


David Cassidy, who made hit records and girls swoon in the 1970s as the young star of ABC's The Partridge Family, has died. He was 67.

Cassidy died Tuesday, according to his longtime rep. He was reported to be in a Florida hospital suffering from multiple organ failure. "On behalf of the entire Cassidy family, it is with great sadness that we announce the passing of our father, our uncle, and our dear brother, David Cassidy," his rep, JoAnn Geffen, said in a statement given to The Hollywood Reporter. "David died surrounded by those he loved, with joy in his heart and free from the pain that had gripped him for so long. Thank you for the abundance and support you have shown him these many years."



In February, the entertainer revealed that he had dementia and would no longer appear in concert in an effort to focus on his health and "enjoy life." He had fallen on stage and forgotten lyrics during a show in Agoura Hills, Calif.

"When friends of yours or family members begin to say to you, 'Remember, I just told you this two days ago' and there's no memory of it, that's when I began to be very concerned," Cassidy said on Dr. Phil.

Cassidy's Partridge Family costar Shirley Jones paid tribute to her friend in a statement to THR: "Long before he played my son on The Partridge Family, David Cassidy was my stepson in real life. As a little boy, his sweet sensitivity and wicked sense of humor were already on display, and I will treasure the years we spent working and growing together. I will also find solace knowing that David is now with his dad. My heart is with David’s daughter, Katie, his son, Beau, and with Shaun, Patrick, and Ryan, whom I know are deeply missing their brother today. Thank you for the enormous outpouring of affection you have offered our family at this difficult time."

Let it Shine


His brother, Shaun Cassidy, paid tribute to his brother with a series of tweets on Wednesday: "When I was a little boy and my big brother would come to visit, the first call of business would be a punishing pillow fight. During the battle, he would regale me with hysterical stories of our father, often culminating in his taking a giant leap off my top bunk ... I tried to catch him of course. I always tried to catch him. But I never could. Now, I will carry him, along with all of the funny/sad/extraordinary days we shared, none more filled with love than these last few at his side."
Cassidy had numerous personal problems in the decades following his breakthrough on television, ranging from substance abuse and drunk-driving arrests to bankruptcy.
The adorably handsome New York native rose to fame playing singer-guitarist Keith Partridge on Screen Gems' The Partridge Family, which aired for four seasons on ABC, from 1970-74.
The show centered on a suburban family that had a band comprised of a widowed mom — played by Shirley Jones, Cassidy's real-life stepmother — and her five kids: Cassidy (the oldest), Susan Dey, Danny Bonaduce, Suzanne Crough and Jeremy Gelbwaks/Brian Forster.
Each episode had the family doing a song. Cassidy actually played guitar and sang and Jones provided backing vocals, but the rest of the "band" was faking it.
Cassidy and Jones performed on The Partridge Family's debut single, "I Think I Love You," which reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 in November 1970 just as his new show was catching on. The single sold more than 5 million copies, and The Partridge Family went on to release eight albums.

Darlin’

Cassidy also fronted five solo albums, and his vocals also powered such hits as "Cherish;" "Come On Get Happy," his show's signature tune;" "I Write the Songs;" "The Last Kiss;" and "Lyin' to Myself."
He became a huge concert draw and one of music's highest-paid acts, selling out such venues as the Houston Astrodome, Madison Square Garden and Wembley Stadium. A stampede at one of his shows in London resulted in the death of a teenage girl in 1974.
In 1996, Cassidy was still such a force that he headlined the $75 million EFX show at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas.
"I played in concerts all over the world, in stadiums and in coliseums and huge outdoor arenas," he said in 2010. "When I went all over the world, they called it World War Three. There were hundreds of thousands of people. What happened was that parents would bring their kids. The parents would be outside waiting for them. Actually, there were more people outside, cars and parents waiting for their kids to find them. There was such chaos and madness in those days."

In 1978, Cassidy was nominated for an Emmy for starring on an episode of NBC's Police Story in which he played a narcotics cop who goes undercover at a high school. It served as the pilot for the series David Cassidy — Man Undercover, which lasted just 10 episodes in 1978-79.



Cassidy was born on April 12, 1950, in New York City, the son of singer-actor Jack Cassidy and actress Evelyn Ward. After his parents divorced, his dad married Oklahoma! star Jones in 1956, and they would have sons Shaun, Patrick and Ryan.

In January 1969, Cassidy appeared on Broadway in the musical The Fig Leaves Are Falling. It lasted just four performances, but it led to a screen test. Cassidy signed with Universal and appeared on episodes of IronsideThe F.B.I.Marcus Welby, M.D.Adam-12 and Bonanza.

Bernard Slade, who created The Partridge Family, did not realize Cassidy could sing or play when he auditioned him; he figured his good looks were more than enough to justify bringing him on board.
But then Cassidy — who played in blues bands and was a big B.B. King fan — snuck in a lick or two of Hendrix.
In 1972, seeking to shed his bubblegum image while The Partridge Family was still on the air, he posed nude for Annie Leibovitz for a startling Rolling Stone cover story that revealed he liked to get stoned.

Cassidy replaced Allen Fawcett as the star of the Tony-nominated, Gail Berman-produced Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat on Broadway in 1982, and he also appeared on stage in London's West End.

Later, Cassidy was a regular on the ABC Family series Ruby & the Rockits and showed up on such TV series as The Love BoatFantasy IslandAlfred Hitchcock PresentsThe Ben Stiller ShowMalcolm in the Middle and CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. He also was a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice in 2011; he got into a spat with Richard Hatch and was the first to be fired.



His memoir, Come On, Get Happy: Fear and Loathing on The Partridge Family Bus, was published in 1994.

Cassidy was married and divorced three times, to actress Kay Lenz (White Line Fever), Meryl Tanz and Sue Shifrin. Survivors include daughter Katie Cassidy, who plays Laurel Lance/Black Siren on Arrow.

David Cassidy and Donny Osmond



so sad to hear of the passing of david cassidy... he was always so kind to me - such a pleasure to have had him on my show... sending love and prayers to his family... R.I.P. friend ❤️ pic.twitter.com/tsFkNiJ…
1 day ago · Twitter
I’m very sad to hear about David Cassidy. There were times in the mid-1970s when he would come over to my house and we even started writing a song together. He was a very talented and nice person. Love & Mercy to David and his family.
1 day ago · Twitter
So sorry to hear about David Cassidy's passing. Godspeed. pic.twitter.com/JpKs2VN…
23 hours ago · Twitter
I grew up in an era before even cable TV, when The Partridge Family was already in reruns. David Cassidy's Keith was one of my favorite TV characters. He was legit funny AND he could sing. The man entertained me during my childhood and even years later: youtu.be/6b5pNPBHilw
1 day ago · Twitter
My uncle David Cassidy has sadly passed away tonight... & in the process of mourning I can't help but thank God for the joy that he brought to countless millions of people! I don't think I'm alone in saying that we will all miss him. God Speed!
1 day ago · Twitter
#DavidCassidy. You were so sweet to me and you left us too soon. To me and millions of us you were forever young. RIP. pic.twitter.com/3JcjvKi…
1 day ago · Twitter
My thoughts and prayers are with the family and loved ones of David Cassidy ... part of a musical legacy via his role as "Keith Partridge" that brought music and laughter into the homes of millions ... 🎼🙏🕊️ pic.twitter.com/tgj1IXk…
23 hours ago · Twitter
Sad to learn David Cassidy has died. Like his father Jack he had great talent, and a complicated life. Condolences to his wonderful family.
1 day ago · Twitter