HBO Docs: 2011 Ronald Reagan Documentary

Source:The Daily Post

I just saw the Ronald Reagan documentary last night on HBO and I thought they did a pretty good job. Jumped through his California governorship, focused on the student protests at Berkley and his brief presidential run in 1968. Yes, Ron Reagan ran twice for president before being elected. I would've like to of seen more of Governor Reagan and see what type of Governor he was, even though I already have a pretty good idea from other films I've seen. I would've like to have seen how he worked with the Democratic legislature. How he defeated Governor Brown in 1966, how he got reelected in 1970.

How Governor Reagan closed the budget deficit, Welfare reform, all issues he focused on as Governor of California. As well as how he dealt with President Nixon in the 1970s. The fact he considered himself to be a Libertarian up until 1975 and then became more of a Classical Conservative like Barry Goldwater. His failed 1976 Presidential run against President Gerry Ford, what he did when out of office before he announced he was going to run for president in 1979. His involvement in 1978 California Proposition that would have allowed California employers to fire homosexuals because of their sexuality. That Reagan came out against, when he knew he was going to need the Religious-Right to be elected president in 1980.

There are so many aspects about Ron Reagan, that doing an hour and forty-five minute film about him, doesn't really do justice as far as telling the story of Ron Reagan the man. Someone because of his conservatism, couldn't win national office as a Republican today. The Religious-Right as well as Neoconservatives wouldn't allowed that to happen. They would've treated him like Ron Paul. Accusing him of being a Liberal or Libertarian, which is one reason why he still remains one of our most popular former president's. Because except for maybe Progressives, who still go out of their way to speak against him, he has broad support.

Conservatives love him because he's against big government across the board, for the most part. George Will being an excellent example of that. Libertarians like him because he believed in low taxes and didn't want to tell Americans how to live their lives. Liberals such as myself and others respect him because he's a real Conservative and could work with Democrats. Centrists like him because he made government work and was practical. Reagan has support almost across the board. What you get with the HBO film, is a look at certain targeted aspects of his life, intended to appeal to a broad audience of people. Who don't follow politics and history very closely and feel the need to be entertained, which is one reason why this movie focused a lot on his Hollywood career and his two marriages, as well as his kids and Nancy. And there should be a movie about him, which is how LBJ and FDR have been covered where you get a big picture.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Joseph Campbell: Walter Cronkite Wasn't the Most Trusted Man in America

Source:FreeState Now 

Whether Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America or not, who knows, Walter Cronkite was the most trusted news anchor in America. Which was more important and easier to judge. He had this saying at the end of the CBS Evening News, “and that’s he way it is”. And people believed that, we don’t have that today where a lot of our media is determined by which side of the aisle controls that organization.

The three national network newscasts, on NBC, ABC and CBS, as well as PBS, which people tend to forget or not even be aware of, still report the news based on what they report. “This is what we found and these are the facts in the story, as best we can determine”. And I believe they still carry out the Cronkite legacy as I would call it that way. Where most of the rest of the news operations, except for C-SPAN and CNN as well, cover the news from a slant from either the right or left.

Opinion news mix in lets call them targeted facts, they’ll give you half the story if that and the rest of it will be commentary. And most of the people they interview share their view of the news and what that means and they’ll interview them to back up their perspective. And when they interview someone from the other side, they do it to contradict that person. With Walter Cronkite and with the PBS NewsHour, you get, “these are the facts”, their reporters are reporters whose job it is to find out what’s going on in the country and around the World.

The network news divisions will interview analysts, a lot of times people without political slants who are there to explain what the facts mean. Which is much different from Fox News that’s in the business to give right-wingers a voice in the country and be the spokespeople for the Republican Party. Except for Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace, where you get real reporting and real interviews. And with MSNBC, especially in the prime time, but you can go back to 3PM with Martin Bashir, what you get from them is voices of the so-called progressive movement. They go after Republicans, as well as Democrats when they believe they aren’t progressive enough.

One of the problems with today’s news and why someone like Walter Cronkite wouldn’t be nearly as relevant, if even successful, is that today news is not only mixed in with commentary, but with also entertainment. People much rather know what Kim Kardashian wore at the last event she went to. Or about Paris Hilton’s latest run in with the law, and not how well the economy grew in the third quarter or April’s jobs numbers. So hard news is a lot harder to sell today with news organizations under the pressure to report everything, not just what’s important.

Associated Press: Four Arrested in Florida Child Prostitution Ring

Source:FRS FreeState

Hopefully this goes without saying and if it doesn't, you are really ignorant about me or just some type of jerk something. But I'm against juvenile prostitution and I don't see how any good person could be in favor of it, or even believe it should be legal, whether they are for it or not. But I don't see how its any more of a problem than underage drinking of alcohol or smoking tobacco. 

And assuming these guys are guilty of running this child prostitution ring and again at risk of stating the obvious, I don't know if they are, they've only been arrested from what I've seen, they should and will probably get what's coming to them. Florida doesn't mess around with people who take advantage of juveniles or young adults, this is the State that executed serial murderer/rapist Ted Bundy in 1989. 

What I would have a problem with, if these guys were arrested for running an adult prostitution ring, whether its made up of female or male prostitutes or pimps. We already have too many people in prison in America, who aren't actual threats to society, in a lot of cases. Especially thanks to the War on Drugs, a lot of our inmates are in there for using or possessing illegal narcotics. Prohibiting prostitution just adds to this problem.

Like alcohol, tobacco and yes marijuana, prostitution if its regulated properly, is something we can live with as a country. That is prostitution for adults, juveniles shouldn't be involved with this at all. Nevada and perhaps other states as well as countries, have figured out how to live with prostitution. Through taxation and regulation and so can we, instead of sending people to prison and having them live at Tax Payer expense. 

We should allow healthy prostitutes and pimps who follow the regulations and pay their taxes from this business. Stay in business and have them contribute to society with their taxes and arguably entertainment to their customers. Rather than sending them to prison and wasting their lives and devoting more tax dollars to pay for people who are more than capable of supporting themselves. 

There's of course the argument from both the Right and Left, who support big government and will say how dangerous this would be and so-fourth. But these dangers can be handled through regulation. Child prostitution of course should remain illegal, but adult prostitution is not something we should support or subsidize. 

But like alcohol, tobacco, gambling and hopefully someday soon marijuana, is something we can live with, if we regulate it and tax it properly. And if people in this business violate these laws, then of course they should be arrested, tried and convicted if found guilty.

ESPN: 'The Fallen Champ- The Untold Story of Mike Tyson'

Source:ESPN- Classic showing this documentary.

Source:Real Life Journal

"The Untold Story of Mike Tyson: "The Fallen Champ"......Great Documentary. Mike Tyson The Fallen Champ the untold story documentary, boxing fight knockout documentary compilation highlight. Fedor David Haye, Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather, James Toney, Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins, Juan Manuel Marquez, HBO 24 episode, Vladimir Klitschko Klitchko, Vitali Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Amir Khan, Carl Froch. Video tribute Joe Louis Frazier, Julio Cesar Chavez, Gene Tunney, Rocky Marciano, Larry Holmes, Jack Dempsey, Johnson."  

From ESPN

"When FALLEN CHAMP first appeared in 1993, director Barbara Kopple won both the Emmy and DGA award, but the film has rarely been screened since then. Now with the upcoming release of James Toback’s film TYSON, the time is right to look back on Kopple’s achievement at covering the subject from multiple perspectives.

Here’s what Ken Tucker of Entertainment Weekly had to say about the film at the time of its release... 

Source:Stranger Than Fiction- former World Heavyweight Champion of Boxing, Mike Tyson.

From Stranger Than Fiction

When I think of sports tragedies, I think of baseball players like Darryl Strawberry, Jose Cansesco, Pete Rose, Dwight Gooden, Denny McClain, etc. And In Strawberry and Cansesco's case, both five-tool players who had all the ability to be First Ballot Hall of Famers, but who weren't very disciplined off the field. And both had drug problems as well as injury problems, which had something to do with their lack of discipline as men. In Pete Rose's case, had an incredible great career, because of what he accomplished on the field by that alone, is a First Ballot Hall of Famer.

In Denny McClain's case, the former Detroit Tigers pitcher, who is a former Cy Young Award Winner, in 1968 who won thirty games in a season, who was on course to being a First Ballot Hall of Famer, but again had drug and gambling issues and his career was cut short. Because of trouble he got into outside of baseball. 

Dwight Gooden's case, probably the best National League pitcher of the 1980s. A former Cy Young Award winner as well. Again on course to becoming a First Ballot Hall of Famer, but again addicted to cocaine that kept him out of baseball for a period.

When I think of boxers who had tragic endings to their careers, who never lived up to their potential, I think of one boxer: Iron Mike Tyson, who dominated the heavyweight division in the late 1980s and that says a lot there. 

Iron Mike wins the World Heavyweight Championship in 1986 and was dominant that year, as well as 87, 88 and 89, but loses his World Championship by 1990, to a journeyman, but talented boxer in James Buster Douglas, but never showed the discipline to be a great boxer. Who wins the World Championship by beating Mike Tyson in February, 1990, but loses his championship by November, 1990 to Evander Holyfield. And his career was basically over by then. Mike Tyson, by far the most dominant heavyweight of this 3-4 year period, but loses his championship to an unknown undisciplined boxer in 1990. Who loses the championship just nine months later.

And of course Mike Tyson makes an attempt at a comeback in 1991, with a couple of solid fights against Razor Rudduck. Wins both of them, setting up a potential fight with Evander Holyfield, by 1992. But was no longer the dominant boxer that he was a couple years ago, even though he's only in his mid 20s at this point. But of course that fight never happens because of Iron Mike's rape case in 1992. Where at the very least, Mike is guilty of poor judgement and shouldn't of put himself in that position to begin with. Which makes Mike Tyson's career, what could've been, which is how he'll go down, instead of what a great career he had. 

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge: Peter Robinson Interviewing Charles Moore: The Legacy of Margaret Thatcher

Source:The FreeState

The situation that Margaret Thatcher inherited from Socialist Labor Party in Britain in 1979, is not much different from the situation that Ronald Reagan inherited from the Democratic Party in America economically in 1981. There were some differences politically, but both economies were in bad shape. High unemployment, low economic and job growth, both Thatcher and Reagan inheriting economic messes in 1979 and 81 respectively.

There were political differences, back in the 1970s. The UK Labor Party, was more of a Marxist Socialist Party, that believed in state ownership of the economy. At least to certain extents and there were British industries, that were owned by the U.K. Government. The U.S. Democratic Party, is made up of Liberal and Progressives and have Democratic Socialists. Progressive Democrats in the Party that believe in democratic socialism. Which is different from Marxism, but both parties have their big government supporters as it relates to economics and they were both in charge back then. But both countries were down and weren’t doing very well and were both looking for a change politically and both got it, with Thatcher and Reagan.

So in Britain, what Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did and what the new Labor Party under Tony Blair continued in the late 1990s, but added their own touch to it, was bring more economic freedom to Britain. Privatized more British industries, cut taxes and cut spending and freed a lot of Brits to live their own lives. One thing I respect about the British Conservative Party, that unlike the Republican Party, is that they are a real Conservative Party. Not a Neoconservative Party. They truly believe in conserving individual freedom, not subtracting from it, or trying to tell people how to live their lives. The British Conservatives, didn’t bring in conservative economics, with authoritarian policies on Social Issues. They wanted to expand British freedom and give more Brits the ability to chart their own course in life, and not being dependent on the state for their lively hood.

That Thatcher Revolution, worked so well in Britain, that when Tony Blair was running and eventually elected Prime Minster in 1997 with the Labor Party, he did not run on Marxism. He didn’t try to convince Brits that capitalism doesn’t work and they need to go back to nationalizing British industries and return to the 1970s. What he did was to run on a different type of capitalism, that would expect Brits who were physically and mentally capable of working full-time, would be expected to be self-sufficient in life. And that even if you were unemployed and uneducated, that you would still be expected to work and be self-sufficient. And that the state will help you get the skills you need to be self-sufficient if you need it. Thats the legacy of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Talking Points Memo: Richard Murdock Accidentally Releases Response to ACA Supreme Court Decision

Source:FreeState Now

Without Maine and Indiana, as a Democrat I would be worried about Senate Democrats chances of retaining control of the U.S. Senate. Just because of the numbers, 23-33 Senators that are up for reelection are Democrats, tight presidential election mostly likely either way. But thanks to the Tea Party and the GOP nominating Tea Party candidates to replace safe Republican Senators, as far as them being able to get reelected in Maine and Indiana, Senator Olympia Snowe not bothering to run for reelection in Maine, because of fears of a Tea Party challenger in the primary. Thanks Tea Party! A lifetime of Christmas cards are in the mail for you.

And Richard Murdock a Tea Party candidate knocking out Senator Richard Lugar in Indiana, instead of Senate Republicans having to pick up 3-4 seats to take the majority depending on the presidential election, its more like 5-6. Because they will lose Maine to either a Democrat or a Democratic leaning Independent. And Indiana which is a swing state to begin with, will now have a Tea Party candidate, going up against a Centrist Democrat. Far-Right or Far Left candidates don’t get elected statewide in Indiana. This is not Mississippi where its common for people to believe that gays are responsible for 9/11. Or Barack Obama is a Socialist-Muslim illegal immigrant from Kenya. Hoosiers tend to be Independent and Centrist and sound mind.

Just to cover this video, lets call him Dick Murdock. Because I like how that sounds, instead of Richard Murdock. It makes him sound like a TV private detective or a pornographer. Which could cost him votes in today’s neoconservative GOP that’s been sleeping in a cave since 1955. And hasn’t figured out yet that it’s actually 2012. But not only will Indiana have a Far-Right Republican to consider, that believes Americans aren’t qualified to determine who represents them in the US Senate.

Dr. Dick supports a Constitutional Amendment that would take our vote for Senate away from us. And give that vote to State Legislatures, while speaking about the importance of the US Constitution. A Constitution that he wants to amend for U.S. Senate. But a Far-Right Senate candidate that’s also a physic and just had a vision that the Supreme Court will rule that part of the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and only throw out parts of it.

I’ve never had the opportunity to vote for or against a physic before. To tell you the truth a physic would have more than a leg up on his or her colleagues that they would serve with. They could say, “look we shouldn’t do that, I had a vision that wouldn’t work. And it would be horrible for the country. Or you should vote for this because I had a vision that this bill would be great for the country.” And the physic would be correct, because they can see into the future. But the truth is the Supreme Court won’t officially rule on the Affordable Care Act until next week.

Associated Press: Mitt Romney to Small Business's: Add More Jobs

Source:FRS FreeState

Telling someone to hire people, won’t create jobs. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama says its time to hire new employees. “Well just because of that alone, we are going to start hiring more people right way, because they know with their vast experience in running small business’s on how best to run our business’s. Then we the people who are keeping these Business’s, well in business”. It doesn’t work that way, what creates jobs in either small or big business, is the need to hire new employees. It’s as simple as that.

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama waving their magic economic wands, won’t get small business’s to hire more people right now if profits are down or flat or you are worried about just staying in business. Perhaps trying to figure out how to obtain a loan, just to stay in business. You aren’t going to look for way to increase your payroll, if anything you are going to look for ways to cut payroll, to save money. Small business’s aren’t hiring right now, because economic growth is low, job growth is also low because of weak economic Growth. Now three years into the economic recovery from the Great Recession of 2008-09. Economic growth is low because consumer demand is low. Consumer demand is low, because people simply aren’t spending money right now.

If reading any of this makes you dizzy, I completely understand. I’m dizzy just from writing it. Americans are spending just to meet their basic needs and are struggling just to do that. One reason why its a bad time to pass tax hikes. Sorry Socialists, tax hikes and tax increases are not always a good thing a cure to any disease, economic or otherwise. But all these in the economy are linked together and are holding our economy down. So the way to create jobs and get small business’s to start hiring again, is by giving them more customers. Give them more demand so they need more employees to meet the new consumer demand.

Not making their jobs tougher by taking more of their money from them to feed Uncle Sam, who needs a diet anyway. The way you create more jobs, is to create more demand and need for new workers. That is how we get the economy going again. Sounds simple, now we need policies to encourage that. So first lets not pass Tax Hikes right now, the Payroll Tax or anything else, consumers need that money in their pockets and for jobs to be created, they need to spend that money.

One way to do that is to create jobs for small business. Like with infrastructure investment, passing an infrastructure bill out of Congress in the hundreds of billions of dollars over two years. By giving construction companies more work to do, they’ll end up needing new employees to do that work, which will create more and new jobs, hiring unemployed Construction Workers. Economics 101, to create new jobs, you first need to work and business to do. These people will now have some money to spend with their new jobs and would add to our consumer spending, which will lead to new consumer demand, which will lead to new economic growth, which will lead to more job growth.

All of these things are linked together and when they are all doing well, like just as little as 5-6 years ago or in the 1990s. Economic and job growth are high, but when they are down, our whole economy as far as consumer demand, consumer spending, economic and job growth are all down. Which is the situation right now, so to fix these problems we need to encourage people to spend money again. You don’t fix the economy with politician’s saying, “now its time to hire for the good of the country!” Business’s need good reasons to hire that will help their business’s first.