Complaint Tracking Form: Fill & Download for Free

At this point, maybe throw my hands up in the air!The last couple of years have sort of been a primer about what Canadian Prime Ministers cannot do to strengthen the economy. I should, however, note, that no matter who the Prime Minister is, they do not run the show on their own. They rely on their Cabinet and their senior administration, the Deputy and Assistant and Associate Deputy Ministers. They in turn funnel advice from the lower levels of the federal public service, after having redacted and simplified it, according to their own preferences.Frequently the Prime Minister will issue the Ministers what are called Mandate Letters, like so:https://pm.gc.ca/eng/mandate-lettersThe Cabinet Ministers are given some authority to do things on their own. However, a large scale fiscal decision or one with potentially strong political consequences would be presented for discussion at a Cabinet meeting. The docket for these, and the form that discussion papers can take, is very, very structured.Between being the head of his party, carrying out various political activities, doing his constituency work, attending various conferences and leading their own life, the Prime Minister's policy and decision-making time are very compressed. The Prime Minister is highly reliant on advice seeping up from down under.So, What Is A Prime Minister To Do?I suspect the current Prime Minister had a pretty good general idea before he ever took office, but, if he didn't know before, he sure knows it now. A lot of what he might think is appropriate to do and that might strengthen Canada's economy, he can't. There are some severe constraints on his powers:-Some of the most important economic levers fall under the exclusive power of the provinces. They can, if they wish to, delegate some of those powers to the municipalities. The federal government has no powers over these provincial and municipal decisions. At best, the Prime Minister could try to exercise some moral suasion, but that could backfire. They could offer the provinces money to do certain things, but a federal government in its right mind would not do that without trying to attach “strings”. The provinces may hate it, and then the federal government is burdened with yet another loser issue.-Canada's economy is very vulnerable to foreign actions, by the USA, the People's Republic of China, the European Union, etc. All these units are playing to their own domestic constituencies. Fairness to another country is way at the back of their priorities, and Canada has limited power to force decisions that are favourable to us. As we saw with the USMCA negotiations, the federal government ends up playing defence against arbitrary, poorly-informed and unscrupulous behaviour by other countries. It doesn't matter what the Prime Minister would prefer.-Obviously, reducing federal taxes would reduce some of the load on consumers and businesses and would encourage more consumption and, hopefully, corporate investment. However, a lot of federal taxes go to cover fixed expenditures. These include debt service, fiscal transfers by agreement with the provinces and entitlement programmes that are very difficult to cut. The salary component of federal public service expenditures is covered by contracts between the federal governments and the bargaining units. These cannot be changed until the they near the end of their term and are ready for renegotiation. There is nothing the Prime Minister can do about a contract that isn't over until after the next election.-To a large extent, the courts, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada, have superior jurisdiction to the Prime Minister. They will, for example defend indigenous rights that were guaranteed by treaties, and will defend the provinces against intrusion on their constitutional authority. So, the federal government can spend over $5,000,000,000, turning the Trans-Mountain Pipeline at least temporarily into a crown corporation. But, one decision by the Supreme Court, defending indigenous title, or protecting the exclusive powers of the provinces, can stop the Prime Minister in his tracks.So, There Is Nothing A Prime Minister Can Do?There are some things a Prime Minister could do, that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. However, the things that haven't yet been done could be seen as awfully radical:-The federal government has made valiant attempts to negotiate trade treaties with the Pacific Rim countries and the European Union. However, it is far off being certain that Canada's economy, or, given the current history of globalisation, whether the mass of Canadians, will benefit. We know that Canadian exporters are not necessarily valiant about penetrating any market other than the USA. The federal government is already trying to persuade them. Withdrawing from the USMCA, presuming Congress ratifies it, or from whatever economic gains Canada might make from the other two treaties, is taking an irresponsible risk.Other measures that the federal government might take could be a commentary on the difference between the profits of Canadian corporations, as opposed to the employment and monetary interests of the average Canadian. For example, what if it imposed stringent penalties on companies that exported jobs from Canada, at least to countries outside of our trade agreements? These could include increases in federal taxes or depriving the company concerned of any access to temporary foreign workers. Or, the companies could be excluded from bidding for the numerous federal contracts.-More generally, the federal government could change some of its immigration selection policies. Immigration is a concurrent power under the Constitution, but the federal government has superior authority. But, again, there would have to be some difficult decisions, not just about the balance between corporate and public interests, but between those of the different segments of the public. For example, the retirement home industry employs substantial numbers of temporary foreign workers. Stopping them might encourage the employers to train and hire Canadian workers, particularly if they raised wages and improved working conditions. But, what happens if the retirement homes just cannot get them, or the costs of operation are significantly increased? A radical change in course is impossibly without someone getting hurt.Even more controversial would be, reducing the component of non-economic immigrants who can come into Canada, in each year's annual immigration level. Dependant immigrants can place a drain on government services. Even if they are sponsored members of the Family Class, or sponsored Refugees, these immigrants cannot offer very much to increase Canada's economic productivity. It is reality, but would any federal government from any party, and particularly the Prime Minister, be prepared to enunciate the reasons and carry on in the face of the complaints?-The federal government cannot unilaterally cancel its fiscal transfer commitments to the provinces. However, a Prime Minister could implement a tough austerity program for some very significant government expenditures. Some of the expenditures have come to be seen as nearly sacrosanct. Would any federal government be willing to wind down expenditures on bilingual services, including for example, the very sizable expenditures on translation services? Would they wind down the more generous employment benefits paid in high unemployment, or, particularly, seasonal employment, regions? What about closing yet more Canadian missions overseas?Here is the list of all Canadian federal departments and agencies:https://www.canada.ca/en/government/dept.htmlClearly, some of the agencies could be abolished, without damaging the core responsibilities of the federal government. For example, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, all the museum agencies (except any that are self-financing) and the Council for the Arts, Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, the Canadian Heritage Information Network, the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, etc. I would go as far as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It does not have the same rationale for existing anymore.If the federal government transferred some of the money saved to Revenue Canada, and dictated a more aggressive and more punitive policy on tax evasion, it is quite possible that enough increased tax collections would occur so that federal taxes on individuals and businesses, that are trying to expand jobs in Canada, could be cut.Moral Suasion?How bold can a Canadian Prime Minister be, without making much of the electorate hostile?For example, the housing price situation in Toronto and Vancouver, and increasingly, other places, is a large drain upon the Canadian economy. It leaves many thousand of Canadians with little disposable income. It appears that it is driving needed Canadian workers out of those cities. (For example, the Greater Vancouver Area has a low unemployment rate, but it appears that it is in part because some workers are leaving because of the housing prices, or cannot afford to move there.)Foreign investment is part of the reason for the high prices. But, we see economists saying that, local land use and zoning policies are a bigger part of the problem. Municipalities can be very reluctant to enforce intensification in any given neighbourhood, in the face of fervent objections from local community groups. Nor are the municipalities very ready to insist that less expensive types of housing must be allowed, even in traditional, single, detached bungalow or high end condo areas.There isn't much doubt that the federal government has a mandate to speak on improving Canada's economy. In the past few decades the various Canadian Prime Ministers have not been very bold. Would any Prime Minister be prepared to say that local land use policies, or provincial barriers to interprovincial trade and national trades certification, really are a serious economic problem? Would any Prime Minister in recent history be prepared to pursue an initiative to persuade the provinces, and organize public pressure on them?I Don't Think SoI can't imagine Andrew Scheer, as Prime Minister, would be any more prepared to take any of the initiatives that I describe above then Justin Trudeau is. A Conservative Party government would have to face corporate preferences that it would not be willing to contradict. Nor will they implement measures that might be serious vote losers.Maybe there is a tacit consensus in Canada that increasing the prosperity of the general population is not so very important. The belief is that things are good enough, and, that, in the context of a generally functional social welfare state, people should put up with a lot of things and not question too much.Martin Levine

Because they were taught to be leftist by the Democratic Party of the Pro-Progressive Socialism Agenda.The demarcation line of how far the radical left must not cross could be outlined based in these 3 Ideological acronyms:DiversityInclusivityEquity (Equality of Outcome, measured based on Quota ratio of Identities' group, e.g. Female to Make 50:50 Gender, exhibited by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Cabinet Policy of adding the criterion of females into selecting members)Result? D.I.E = Socialist dictatorship censorship communism utopia of violent anarchy (E.g. Creation of CHAS/CHOP in Lower Seattle, USA)That's when we know that the left (Socialist progressive Democrat's) have gone too far.References and credit attributed to Big Think Media Platform and Guest Jordon B Peterson, University Of Toronto, Canada, Professor of Clinical Psychology, International Speaker and writer of “12 Rules for Life, the antidote to chaos”Recommended ebook online available for download, reading for reference and understanding:Library Genesis: David O. Sacks, Peter A. ThielExcerpts from "The Diversity Myth, 1987, by Peter Thiel and David O. Sacks, Stanford University, Law School"Chapter 1: The West Rejected FirstStanford capitulated to separatist know-nothings and abandoned its “Western Civilization” course because of its bias toward white males (you know: narrow–minded ethnics like Socrates, Jesus, and Jefferson).1 —Columnist Charles Krauthammer n the beginning, before the creation of the multicultural world, Stanford was divided by demonstrations and protests. The most important of these rallies took place on January 15, 1987, when a throng of 500 indignant students and faculty gathered near the University's centrally located White Plaza to hear the Reverend Jesse Jackson.2This assembly was not concerned about founding a new “multicultural” state. In fact, the term “multiculturalism” had not yet entered common usage in early 1987, and most of the demonstrators probably had never heard of the word.Rather, the purpose of the rally was to show support for the “rainbow agenda,” for minority set-asides in admissions and teaching, and for other causes popular with university activists.In short, it began as the sort of protest commonplace on today's college campuses. But on that day, events would be set in motion that would push Stanford towards becoming the nation's first multicultural academy.As the crowd stomped across the manicured lawns to present a list of demands to a meeting of the Faculty Senate, it translated its grievances into a chant: “Hey hey, ho ho, Western Culture's got to go! Hey hey, ho ho, Western Culture's got to go!” 3This collective outpouring of anger, both spontaneous and intense, was reminiscent of protests in Teheran or Tripoli; however, the implausible source of these sentiments was not a mob of Islamic fundamentalists, but some of America's best and brightest students at a bucolic college campus, near sunny Palo Alto, California, an affluent suburban community. (The Diversity Myth, Page 35).America's ongoing “culture war”—would prove to be the labor pains of a nationwide multicultural movement. As was well-reported at the time, this inchoate movement centered its complaints around the fact that most of the books studied in the Western Culture program had been written by “dead white males.”6This charge was new and extraordinary because it attacked not the quality or historical significance of the great books, but rather the authors themselves—for being of the wrong race, gender, or class. To the protestors, the reading list was perceived as a cross-cultural celebration, and their groups had not been invited to the party.Their exclusion had to end, and so Bill King, president of the Black Student Union (BSU), told Time Magazine, “We want the idea of a canon eliminated.”7 The protestors succeeded in exacting this demand, and in January 1988 Stanford's administration replaced the Western Culture program with a new requirement called “Cultures, Ideas, and Values” (CIV).As its name hinted, the new course was based on relativist notions of cultural parity, with a mandated emphasis on race, gender, and class. 8 To ensure this emphasis, the CIV Committee, which was charged with overseeing the transition from Western Culture to CIV, immediately began recruiting minority faculty for the new course.One committee member, comparative literature professor Marjorie Perloff, resigned after finding that “the main role of the committee was to discuss issues of personnel rather than course content. It seemed to be taken as a given that literature dealing with minority issues must be taught by minority professors. This is a very problematic ghettoizing of knowledge.”9According to the new thinking, upper-class white males may have been born with silver spoons in their mouths, but the minorities they oppressed were born with teaching credentials. This thinking would have profound implications for the entire university.As the late philosopher Sidney Hook aptly observed, if only minority professors were qualified to teach books authored by minorities, similar reasoning would dictate that only women could teach gynecology, only fat people obesity, only hungry people the physiology of starvation—or, for that matter, only Nazis could teach about the Third Reich.10Whereas the Western Culture canon had been based upon a belief in universalism—the belief that the insights contained within the West's great works were potentially available to everybody—the new curriculum embraced particularism: What one may know is determined by the circumstances of one's birth. This was the crux of the whole debate. The Western Culture protestors were attacking not just “dead white males,” but the idea of universalism itself.The idea they rejected was this: There exist truths that transcend the accidents of one's birth, and these objective truths are in principle available to everyone—whether young or old, rich or poor, male or female, white or black; individuals (and humanity as a whole) are not trapped within a closed cultural space that predetermines what they may know.Within this framework, the university served as a refuge, somewhat outside the confines of a given culture, where individuals could disregard parochial blinkers of ethnicity, age, gender, class, or race and search for these transcendent truths. In rejecting the West, the protestors repudiated this entire framework.11 In doing so, their fateful protest of January 1987 would pave the way for a very different kind of academy. (TDM, Page 37, 38).The New Classics Founded upon the twin plinths of cultural relativism and cultural determinism, CIV sought to refit the reading list to a world devoid of universal truths. Having embraced race, gender, and class as proxies for some kind of special knowledge, or gnosis, the educators who taught CIV divided the reading list among cultural and racial constituencies, much the same way a city council might gerrymander districts. 12 The “Common Elements” among the CIV tracks, according to the 1992–93 program syllabus, were not perennial questions like “What is justice?” or “What constitutes a good life?” but: Works by women, minorities and persons of color Works introducing issues of race, gender and class Works of non-European provenance 13As Provost James Rosse wrote in a revealing letter, the new freshman requirement would “include the study of great works as well as works reflecting the role and contributions of minorities and women.”14 (TDM, Page 38).During 1988–89, a compromise transition year, all the CIV tracks read the Bible, Plato, Augustine, Machiavelli, Rousseau, and Marx. Thereafter, quite a bit more was left to the discretion of professors, as the “Common Readings” (a term preferred to “canon”) consisted of:Hebrew Bible and Christian BibleA Classical Greek philosopherAn Early Christian thinkerA Renaissance dramatistAn Enlightenment thinkerMarx (15)In short, Plato was replaced with the more general category of “classical Greek philosophers,” Augustine with “early Christian thinkers,” Machiavelli with “Renaissance dramatists,” and Rousseau with “Enlightenment thinkers.” With the important exception of Marx (who is never deconstructed), the altered list implied that individual writers are the delegates of certain constituencies—ancient Greeks, early Christians, etc.—from which they derived their right to serve on the reading list. In a reverse of direction from the old course, authors were chosen precisely because they typified some cultural group, rather than because their writings are immortal and have transcended such particulars.Few questioned how studying cultural differences could possibly be of value if ethnic experiences were incomprehensibly foreign to others. On the contrary, history professor Paul Robinson remarked, “We are eager to replace a canonized and seemingly unalterable ‘core list’ with a process aimed to create ‘a common intellectual experience.”’ 16Professor Robinson was referring to CIV's founding legislation, which mandates that the class “provide students with the common intellectual experience of broadening their understanding of ideas and values.”17The goal of the freshman requirement had shifted subtly from providing students with a common background, defined objectively in the form of a great works reading list, to providing a common experience, subjectively defined by (Page 39) those doing the reading. What each author actually wrote (and whether any of it is true) was much less important than the effect on students. Hence, in 1992 the Philosophy track added Chief Seattle to the Course Reader. 18Because American Indian culture is as alien to most freshmen as ancient Greek culture, Chief Seattle presumably had instructional, or “broadening,” value roughly equivalent to that of Plato or Aristotle. In this way, although the different tracks shared few authors in common, they were still able to provide 1,500 freshmen with a “common intellectual experience”—not by transmitting common knowledge, but by transmitting a common sensation of “broadening understanding.”The course instructors, however, never explained in what direction students’ minds should be broadened, or why any particular direction was preferable to another.In practice, of course, a number of faculty members found it far from easy to create a new canon ex nihilo.Some professors chose to keep most of the old books, but changed the course focus. The Philosophy track, for instance, continued to require both Plato and Aristotle, but wedged readings about Australian aborigines between the two.19Among aboriginal “philosophical” insights are the concept of “dream-time”—a circular and antirational way of viewing cause and effect—and the belief that women become pregnant by crossing spiritually enchanted patches of ground. The class paid little attention to whether the aboriginal claims are actually true. Rather, discussions contrasted the readings with the “logocentric” approach of Western philosophers like Aristotle or Descartes.The upshot was that logic and illogic were put on the same plane and that truth and consistency were considered just two values among many. The course instructors ignored the fact that the raison d'etre of philosophy is the discovery of transcultural truth, and that ipso facto the discipline is predominantly a Western pursuit.The anti-Western focus required glossing over another embarrassing detail: The aboriginal readings were actually written by Western anthropologists because the aborigines lacked a written language—not to mention anthropology itself.For instructors in other tracks, the CIV program provided the desired vehicle for a comprehensive revolution. Perhaps most extreme is “Europe and the Americas,” a CIV track developed by anthropology professor Renato Rosaldo, one of the foremost advocates of curricular change. The new track focuses on issues of race, class, and gender—to the exclusion of (Page 40) almost everything else. 20Marx's historic treatise on class warfare, the Communist Manifesto, is still required, and from there the 17- and 18- year-old freshmen's educational experience deteriorates rather rapidly.They study Guatemalan revolutionary Rigoberta Menchu, whose book I… Rigoberta Menchu relates “the effects on her of feminist and socialist ideologies.” The story tracks Menchu's journey from poverty and despair to the center of the Central American revolutionary movement.Next, Zora Neale Hurston's book Their Eyes Were Watching God presents a semiautobiographical critique of male domination in American society. The hero of With His Pistol in His Hand, by America Parades, is a Mexican who shoots a local sheriff in Texas and runs away from the law, as he realizes that “there is one law for Anglo-Texans, another for TexasMexicans.”“Impotence and despair reign” in Juan Rulfo's The Burning Plain, as Mexican Indians struggle to eke out a living in the howling desert. Sandra Cisneros's House on Mango Street emphasizes the stultification and drudgery of the life of a little girl in a downtown slum. 21 The last week of Fall quarter, lectures are devoted to the topic of “Forging Revolutionary Selves.” (Page 41).

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.There’re several actors that suffered from fame so these are a few you may or may not know about:Robert Cletus “Bobby” DriscollVery few people about know him but Bobby Driscoll was a child star for Disney and started in many successful films for them. Born March 3, 1937 in Cedar Rapids Iowa, he spent his early years in Des Moines until 1943 when his family moved to Los Angeles, California after his dad was suffering from health issues due to handling asbestos. Driscoll began acting starting with the 1943 film “Lost Angel” after impressing the director with his curiosity and intelligence at such a young age after noticing a mock-up ship without any water.the inspiration for their adaptation of Peter Pan. Driscoll provided the voice and model which was then rotoscoped and used in the film. Under Disney’s employ, he was one of the most successful child actors in the late-40’s and early-50’s. He starred in movies such as “So Dear To My Heart”, “Song of the South”, “The Window” and of course “Peter Pan”. He also provided the voice of Goofy Jr. in some of the 50’s Goofy shorts. Originally one of Disney’s personal favorite “live-actors”, as he got older and began to reach puberty, Disney’s view of him changed: He initially saw him as an embodiment of his childhood but during a meeting for Peter Pan, he saw him better suited in roles as a bully rather than a likable protagonist many knew him for.When the acne and deeper voice became too much for Disney studios to cast him in any future roles, Disney let him go. Following his termination, he returned to school where he was ridiculed for his career: "The other kids didn't accept me. They treated me as one apart. I tried desperately to be one of the gang. When they rejected me, I fought back, became belligerent and cocky—and was afraid all the time."It was at this point where he began dabbling into drugs. His parents transferred him as per his request where he graduated but unfortunately, he was hooked on drugs by that point and his usage continued: "I was 17 when I first experimented with the stuff. In no time I was using whatever was available... mostly heroin, because I had the money to pay for it."His struggles didn’t end there as he struggled to find work. He had a few brushes with the law, a short-lived marriage and difficulty regaining his footing in the industry. Needless to say, this left him bitter: "I have found that memories are not very useful. I was carried on a silver platter—and then dumped into the garbage." He began going by “Robert Driscoll” to distance himself from his Disney past in hopes of finding more roles. When they dried up, he moved to New York and turned to Broadway in hopes of reviving his career. When that failed, he turned to art. He joined Andy Warhol’s The Factory to concentrate on his art on the advice of a poet he befriended named Wallace Berman. Sadly, he never recovered from his glory days and around 1967 or 68, his body was found in an abandoned building in East Village by two boys who were playing.The cause of death was heart failure due to his drug use. He was only 31. His body remained unclaimed until a year later when his mom reached out to Disney studios to contact him for a reunion with his near-dead father whom they didn’t speak to in a while. His body and identity were found, yet his remains are still on Hart Island.Despite his initial fame, Bobby was discarded when he was no longer considered cute by the man he originally saw himself in. Originally bathed in fame and adulation, he ended up alone and penniless. It’s even more backhanded knowing that after all these years, he has yet to be made a Disney Legend. This’s the price of fame. R.I.P. Bobby Driscoll.Johnathan BrandisJohnathan Brandis was born April 13, 1976 in Danbury, Connecticut. He began modeling at the age of 2 for Buster Brown shoes and began acting in tv commercials at the age of 4. At age 6, he won the role Kevin Buchanan on the soap opera “One Life to Live”. He later became best known for starring in Steven Spielberg’s hit show, seaQuest DSV. Brandis also became popular starring in movies such as “Ladybugs”, “The NeverEnding Story 2: The Next Chapter” and “Sidekicks”. He also voiced Mozenrath in the Disney series, “Aladdin” and even worked as a producer later on in his career. His role as Lucas Wolenczak in seaQuest DSV helped launch him into being a teen heartthrob. He was very popular with girls, so much so that he received approximately 4,000 letters of fan mail a week and had to have three security guards around whenever girls were present.Sadly, after seaQuest DSV ended, so did virtually his career. While he continued to appear in movies and make guest appearances, Brandis never reached the amount of fame that he did on the show. His last movies were “Bad Girls from Valley High” and “Puerto Vallarta Squeeze”.With his career declining, Brandis began to drink heavily and according to friends, he told them that he was going to kill himself. On November 11, 2003, Brandis was found hanged in his apartment in Los Angeles. He didn’t leave behind a suicide note. He was transported to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center but tragically died the following day due to his injuries.Such a tragic end to a bright star.Brad RenfroTo begin with, he had a rough life from the start. Brad Renfro was born in July 25, 1982 in Knoxville, Tennessee. He grew up in a trailer with his grandma after his parents divorced. He allegedly didn’t have a good relationship with his dad. His big break came in the form of the 1994 thriller film called “The Client” that was based on the book by John Grisham. Director, Joel Schumacher wanted a “tough kid” who knew what it was like growing up in the gutter, "I wanted a kid who understood in the marrow of his psyche what it was like to grow up too soon”. The movie was a hit and soon, Renfro began receiving attention from Hollywood.The roles and money kept coming in as did the attention he got from it. He starred in Disney’s “Tom and Huck”, “Sleepers”, “Apt Pupil”, “Bully”, “Tart”, “The Cure” and many others such as “Ghost World”. Unfortunately, as his fame rose, so did his personal problems and they were out in the open for all to see. He was arrested a few times mainly for drug-related offenses and was either in jail or rehab. This caused his career to decline. The last film he starred in was a 2008 drama called “The Informers”. That and a short film simply called “Collectors”.On January 15, 2008, he was found dead in his apartment. According to the autopsy reports, his death was accidental and was caused by Morphine/Heroin intoxication. Since his death, questions have been raised about Hollywood’s role in how child actors are treated in the industry. Controversy about how well he was supervised came when an article from Buzzfeed theorized that despite not breaking any laws, Hollywood still failed to protect him.What also caught many off guard was his maturity and self-confidence for someone his age. Many who met him thought he was 15 or 16 when really, he was only 12 or 13. He had a girlfriend who was twice his age and they supposedly had sex a few times. Even as a kid, he would get explicit letters from teens. A good example is one where the writer claimed that she fantasized waking up with him in her bed. Yikes! It didn’t help that they sexualized him at such a young age either. In one scene in “Apt Pupil”, he’s literally taking a shower while barely censored.Despite being what Hollywood wanted him to be, when he grew too much to handle, they let him go; sadly with disastrous results. Hollywood’s no place for a kid that young. Ever. You won’t be forgotten Brad. R.I.P.Thomas Lee “Tommy” KirkTommy Kirk was born in December 10th, 1941 in Louisville, Kentucky. He’s the first of four sons. His parents moved to Downey in LA County, California for better opportunities when he was just 15 months old. He got his first taste of acting when he accompanied his brother Joe to an audition of Eugene O’Neill’s “Ah, Wilderness!” in Pasadena, California. Joe lost the audition amazingly to Bobby Driscoll and wasn’t cast but Tommy was. "It was five lines, it didn't pay anything, and nobody else showed up, so I got the part," said Kirk. An agent from the Gertz agency saw him and signed Kirk on. He then successfully got him a part in an episode of “TV Reader’s Digest”, "The Last of the Old Time Shooting Sheriffs". His brother Joe, later on became a dentist.He became a steady in television, getting parts for shows such as “Crossroads”, “Gunsmoke”, and ““Letter to Loretta”. He was very popular so naturally he was in demand all the time. According to Dabolique magazine "Kirk was in heavy demand as an actor almost immediately. Watching his early performances it’s easy to see why – he was wide-eyed, gangly, keen and immensely likeable… the very picture of Eisenhower Era American youth, unaffected and natural, surprisingly non-annoying, extremely easy to cast as someone’s kid brother, or son, or neighbour."Later on, he moved to film. In April 1956, Kirk auditioned to play as Joe Hardy in the Mickey Mouse Club serial ““The Hardy Boys: The Mystery of the Applegate Treasure”. He successfully got the part and was selected to co-star with Tom Considine. Filming began in June and early July 1956, and was broadcast in October during the start of the show’s second season. Both the show and Kirk’s acting were praised.In August 1956, Disney hired him and former Mouseketeer Judy Harriet to attend both the republican and democratic presidential nominating conventions, for newsreel specials that later appeared on the show. It wasn’t until January 1957 when Disney cast him in Old Yeller as Travis Coates. That was his big break. It was a boy and his dog story and a very good one. A classic even today still. Due to the film’s success, Disney made him the go-to whenever they needed an all-american boy for the lead role. Kevin Corcoran, who played his younger brother in the film later starred as such in the films they starred together. They were originally meant to star in Disney’s adaptation of L. Frank Baum’s “Rainbow Road to Oz”, but it was never produced.Kirk’s career remained strong until 1958 when after filming for “The Shaggy Dog”(Disney’s first live-action comedy) Disney told him he didn’t have any projects lined up for him and was being dropped. "I was thin and gangly and looked a mess... I thought the whole world had fallen to pieces," he said. He returned to television briefly until the success of “The Shaggy Dog” caused Disney to reconsider. He contacted him offering him a long-term contract and a role as Ernst Robinson in 1960’s “A Swiss Family Robinson”. Much like the former it was a success and Kirk’s career was back on track. Kirk has said that’s his favorite movie. He was then signed to two more movies upon returning from filming in the West Indies.Kirk continued to act in Disney movies. Most of them were light comedies to varying degrees of success. Amazingly, despite being hired by Disney, Kirk only met him once outside of a studio. Regardless, Kirk claimed Disney was his “good luck charm”. That all changed during filming of “The Misadventures of Merlin Jones”. Kirk knew since he was a kid that he was gay and due to the conservative time period, was deeply unhappy. In 1963 while filming the movie, Kirk who was 21, began seeing a 15 year old boy he met at a swimming pool. The boys mom found out and told Disney who decided not to renew his contract:I consider my teenage years as being desperately unhappy. I knew I was gay, but I had no outlet for my feelings. It was very hard to meet people and, at that time, there was no place to go to socialize. It wasn't until the early '60s that I began to hear of places where gays congregated. The lifestyle was not recognized and I was very, very lonely. Oh, I had some brief, very passionate encounters and as a teenager I had some affairs, but they were always stolen, back alley kind of things. They were desperate and miserable. When I was about 17 or 18 years old, I finally admitted to myself that I wasn't going to change. I didn't know what the consequences would be, but I had the definite feeling that it was going to wreck my Disney career and maybe my whole acting career. It was all going to come to an end.After reviewing the complaint, Disney personally fired him: “Even more than MGM, Disney was the most conservative studio in town.... The studio executives were beginning to suspect my homosexuality. Certain people were growing less and less friendly”. Despite being let go in 1963, Disney did ask him to return to star in the sequel The Monkey’s Uncle due to the success of the first one and the fact that he made them bank.Thankfully, Tommy Kirk found work at American International Pictures(AIP). He starred in what was later known as Pajama Party(1964) where he played a Martian originally sent to invade only to fall in love with some partying teens. One of who he falls in love with played by former Mickey Mouse Club star, Annette Funicello. The success led him to star in the follow-up “How to Stuff a Wild Bikini”. Just when things were looking up for him, on Christmas Eve 1964, Kirk was arrested for suspicion of pot possession at a house in Hollywood. The district attorney’s office refused to file a complaint against him on the marijuana charge but unfortunately, the city attorney’s office did as they found barbiturates in his car. Thankfully, the charge was dismissed by the judge in early January when his lawyer proved that they were medically prescribed to him.Sadly, the damage was done and he was replaced in the later sequels. The experience left him bitter: "This town is full of right-wingers—the world is full of right-wingers—intolerant, cruel sons-of-bitches", he did acknowledge his mistake though, admitting he "richly deserved to be fired from the studios because of my irresponsibility. A person on drugs is not fit for work".His career regained momentum with movies of varying quality but by 1966, his personal problems began to affect his career: I was drinking, taking pills and smoking grass. In fact, I was pretty wild. I came into a whole lot of money, but I threw a lot of parties and spent it all. I wound up completely broke. I had no self-discipline and I almost died of a drug overdose a couple of times. It's a miracle that I'm still around. All of that didn't help the situation. Nobody would touch me; I was considered box office poison.”By the time his racing film Track of Thunder was done, Kirk became an addict by this point. "I was about half awake in that film. I just sort of walked through it and took the money." After doing two non-Screen Actor Guild movies in 1970, he nearly lost his SAG card. Realizing he hit rock bottom, he vowed to turn his life around. "Finally, I said, to hell with the whole thing, to hell with show business, I'm gonna make a new life for myself, and I got off drugs, completely kicked all that stuff."Three years later he publicly came out as gay in an interview with Marvin Jones. After appearing in a few movies, Kirk finally quit acting in the mid-70’s and got a job as a waiter and chauffeur before going into the car cleaning business in San Fernando Valley. Despite getting out, Kirk admitted he was “poor” by that point:“I made a lot of money and I spent it all. No bitterness. No regrets. I did what I did... I wasn't the boy next door anymore. I could pretend to be for a few hours a day in front of the camera. But I couldn't live it. I'm human. I'm not Francis of Assisi”.It’s great to know that he made it out and is taking it slow. He occasionally acts still and was made a Disney Legend in 2006:“I don't blame anybody but myself and my drug abuse for my career going haywire. I'm not ashamed of being gay, never have been, and never will be. For that I make no apologies. I have no animosity toward anybody because the truth is, I wrecked my own career”.In 2006, he claimed to have retired on “a nice pension” while living in Redding, California as of today:“As I look back on the whole thing, it gave me the chance to be in three or four movies that people will enjoy long after I'm gone. I heard Pat Boone say in an interview that the bombs are just as important as the hits, because they are all part of life. I'm not bitter. I'm not unhappy things didn't go the way I wanted them to go with my career. I tried to be a good actor and an ethical person. I'm still trying to be an ethical and honest person. But I'm glad to be retired. I live in the middle of a national park, basically, with miles and miles of wilderness. Redding ain't glamorous. Monte Carlo it is not. It's small-town life, and it suits me”.Glad to know that’s he still kicking…Corey HaimKnown for roles in films such as “License to Drive”, “The Lost Boys”, “Lucas”, and “Dream A little Dream of Me”, the Canadian actor had a string of hits in the 80’s and was a teen heartthrob. Born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada December 23, 1971, he initially wasn’t interested in acting. At the time, he preferred things such as Ice Hockey, collecting Comic Books, and Piano playing. He got into the biz by accompanying his sister Carol to auditions. During one of them, he was noticed and began getting offered roles. He began acting at age 10. He played a character named Larry for a kids show called The Edison Twins. The show ran from 1982 to 1986. Between that, he made his film debut in the movie First Born where he starred alongside Peter Weller of Robocop fame. Slowly and slowly he hagan reviewing attention which led to greater roles such as The Lost Boys. It was there on the set where he became friends with Corey Feldman and the two were dubbed “The Two Coreys” by the media. They bonded by hanging out in hotels and playing arcade games. Together they were a force to be reckoned with; making hit after hit. Things seemed to be great for them… but what few people knew about was the dark shit that went on behind the scenes:Feldman has claimed multiple times that they were both raped and abused by powerful men in the industry. The abuse took a toll on them, particularly Haim who’s career spiraled downwards when his addiction got the best of him. His roles were relegated to Direct-to-Videos of varying quality.Once he did clean up his act, he went on to reunite and star alongside Corey Feldman in the infamous reality show, “The Two Corey’s”. At first things went well but as time went on, dark aspects of their careers began to be brought up and soon, Haim began to relapse and become more self-destructive. This forced Feldman to cancel the show in order to try and save him. They later on reconciled behind the camera.In the last few weeks of his life, he lived close to his mom, still trying to rebuild his life. On March 10, 2010, he was rushed to the hospital after he collapsed. Despite being rushed to the paramedics at 2:15, he was pronounced dead at age 38. The cause of death was pneumonia. After his death, they found a lot of medications prescribed to him. Many were obtained illegally using false aliases.Despite being a successful actor, he died broke and the costs for his funeral had to be covered elsewhere. Despite his last few years being less than ideal, we will never forget Corey again for bringing joy in our lives and making us smile.R.I.P. Corey 😔Fernando Ramos da SilvaBorn November 29, 1967 in Sao Paulo, he was the sixth of ten kids and lived with his parents in a slum called Diadema. When he was eight, his father died leaving his mom widowed and a single mom. In order to survive, she received a $10 pension every month and the family sold lottery tickets as a source of income. After briefly attending grade school, he joined a theater group and began acting in plays when he was eight. His big break came when he was picked out of 1,300 applicants by director Hector Babenco for the title character which he became famous for. The 1981 film, Pixote: A Lei do Mais Fraco is known for its gritty portrayal of Brazilian street life which he knew all too well as he lived it early on. Much like his role, you could say it was semi-autobiographical.Despite the controversy in its depiction of the street children as they do whatever it takes to survive the street ranging from pick pocketing, survival sex, drug dealing, and finally murdering, the film became successful and launched Da Silva into stardom. The film received strong reviews from critics such as Roger Ebert who described it as "a rough, unblinking look at lives no human being should be required to lead. And the eyes of Fernando Ramos da Silva, [Babenco's] doomed young actor, regard us from the screen not in hurt, not in accusation, not in regret - but simply in acceptance of a desolate daily reality."Shortly afterwards, Da Silva got a one-year contract TV Globo for a soap opera called O amor é nosso. Sadly, it wasn’t meant to last as he was fired shortly afterwards due to his perceived laziness. He was actually illiterate which may’ve contributed to that false perception. He managed to land a small role in Bruno Barreto’s Gabriela and enrolled in acting school before dropping out two days later. According to friends and family, he never settled down. After being arrested in 1984 in Diadema, the Mayor of Duque de Caxias, outside Rio de Janeiro, gave him a house in the neighborhood. His mom and some family members moved in briefly before returning to the slum a few months later due to missing it.Realizing his fame was fleeting, he returned to the life he knew best: A life on the streets. He struggled to distance himself from his role and claimed that police constantly harassed him because of his iconic role. ''I just want people to forget my image as Pixote,'' he told a reporter after his second arrest, in 1985. ''I want a chance to live as a man, without being persecuted. They created a Pixote, but they did not know how to prepare him for life.'' He wanted to play in romantic roles rather than just criminals. This would lead him on a downward spiral. In 1984, he was arrested for robbery charges in Diadema. This would be a reoccuring thing for him. The following year, he married Maria Aparecida Venancia da Silva and the two had a daughter named Jacqueline. Their relationship wouldn’t last long as 2 years later on August 25, Da Silva was shot 7 times by 3 cops who claimed he was resisting arrest. Due to Brazil having a history of police brutality, especially in the slums, few believed the official report with some claiming he was unarmed. Despite the report, a forensic examination showed he was fatally shot while lying on the ground.Both his wife and mom labelled his death as “a police execution”. His sister Maria Aparecida Luz claimed that he was a friend’s house playing cards when he learned that the house was going to be raided and fearing that he’d be arrested, fled unarmed where he was chased by the cops into another house where he was fatally shot.Despite his short life, Da Silva hasn’t been forgotten. His life was made into a movie in 1996 called Quem Matou Pixote? The sad thing is it seemed he was trying to turn his life around yet continued to struggle. The odds were always stacked against him.Corey Haim - WikipediaHow Hollywood Failed Brad RenfroBrad Renfro - WikipediaJonathan Brandis - WikipediaBobby Driscoll - WikipediaTommy Kirk - WikipediaFernando Ramos da Silva - WikipediaThank you for the views and upvotes!