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.

Talking Points Memo: Chris Wallace Calls Presidential Interruption by Neil Munro Outrageous

Source:FreeState Now

There use to be a day in American journalism when reporters were reporters and commentators were commentators. Reporters would write facts that they found and share them with who they worked for and their audience. Commentators and columnists would write about what they thought of the news that was reported and what that meant. In today’s media it’s a little harder to tell the difference between news and commentary. Even though the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal still do a very job of reporting.

Even though these three news giants clearly slant in one direction or another, when it comes to their editorials, but you can tell the differences between their reporters and their editorialists. With today’s online partisan media, with “news organizations” clearly slant in one direction or the other. Talking Points Memo on the left and The Daily Caller on the right, who don’t hide from their partisan leanings, but they do it to the point that most of their stories, benefit their side of the aisle ideologically.

And rarely do partisan publications report something that’s negative towards their side of the aisle. Which is why I believe if you are going to follow one of these partisan news organizations”, I suggest you follow them on both sides. Because many times, you’ll only get one side of the story from one of these groups. But follow both of them and you may get the full story, or at least half of it. Some of these “news organizations” are so partisan to the point that they’ll send their columnists and analysts to press conferences, as if they are reporters and not commentators, to ask questions that are intended to benefit or hurt the person that’s giving the press conference.

David Corn does this for the so-called progressive Mother Jones Magazine and Neal Munro does this for the right-wing The Daily Caller. But Neil Munro took it to a different level today at President Obama’s press conference on immigration reform. Where he literally heckled the President, interrupting him as he was giving his speech. Its one thing to not like a President, as Mr. Munro clearly doesn’t, or be against him or even feel that the President is not worthy of the office and feel disrespect for him. But it’s another to disrespect the office, which is what Neil Munro was doing today.

I have no problem with aggressive journalism as its called today, as long as its intended to report facts. And not designed to make the case for one side of an argument or another. But it’s another thing, just to be rude and classless and not just disrespect the person that’s holding the office, but disrespect the office itself. Which is what Neil Munro did today and proved that the right-wing is more than just against President Obama on philosophically

The Onion: Report: High Unemployment Linked to One Man With 42,000 Jobs

Source:The Daily Press

No wonder we have so much unemployment in this country. Jim Smith lets call him (for lack of a last name) has 42K jobs. You know to be honest with you, I have a hard time believing that one person could manage 42K jobs. I mean he would have to be Superman on steroids. A man with 14-21 thousand clones to pull this off, even making Mitt Romney jealous of all the clones he has. Perhaps Jim borrowed some of his clones from Mitt. He would have to be the worst workaholic imaginable. Someone who never sleeps, perhaps always on caffeine picking up a caffeine addiction while working at Starbucks and running another Starbucks. 

Jim Smith with  that  caffeine addiction, to be able to fly planes on the weekend, while he's air traffic controlling other planes in another city, at the same time. Flying from New York to St. Louis, while landing planes in Miami. His kids probably don't remember the last time they've seen him. His wife or several of his wives, (perhaps he's Mormon) ladies he's met on 2000 of his jobs, have already filed missing person reports. But the problem that police have, no not that they ran out of coffee and doughnuts, Jim gave them a new supply, while working at Dunkin Doughnuts. The problem that police have is that they don't know which Jim Smith to look for. 

How do you track someone down with 42K jobs? Not only that, but how do you track down someone with 42K jobs named Jim Smith. You look up that name in a phonebook and you see 1K guys with that name and then maybe you say. "Well how many guys named Jim Smith with 42K jobs?" Well only one if any, but I'm skeptical that one guy could have all of those jobs. I know what you are thinking to be skeptical of that there is a guy with 42K jobs, would be like trying to believe that Mitt Romney is unemployed, or Barack Obama is a Socialist or Santa Clause doesn't really exist. 

Well call me crazy then, but I don't believe it to begin with. I have this weird suspicion that this story was made up by Onion News and I know what you are thinking. That Onion News reports more facts than Fox News. Well thats true, but if Mitt Romney is unemployed, than anything is possible. I mean who says that President Obama's economic policies aren't working, 42K jobs were created for one man alone. 

With that type of Job Growth, we can create so many jobs, that we won't have enough unemployed workers and then we won't need as big as a safety net. Which of course would drive Progressives crazy to the point where they would come up with policies to layoff more workers, but wouldn't that be a nice problem to have. 

NFL Films: NFL 1967-NFL Championship-Dallas Cowboys @ Green Bay Packers: Ice Bowl Highlights

Source:The Daily Press

When I think of great football games, I don’t think of great shootouts, like the New York Jets beating the Miami Dolphins back in 1986, something like 52-49, the shootout of shootouts. With quarterbacks Dan Marino and Ken O’Brien trading touchdown passes, good game, entertaining game, of course, but not one of the best games of all-time. No, a great game is generally not played by two teams that can’t stop each other, where the team that has the ball last, wins or can’t score against each other. And it’s generally a mistake rather than a great play that decides the game.

Great games are generally played between two great teams, where both teams have good or great offenses and defenses. And the team that wins, is the team that executes or prepares better and perhaps gets a few more breaks. Thats what the 1967 NFL Championship, better known as the Ice Bowl represents. Two very good teams on both sides of the ball, both playing a great game. I mean think about it, the 1967 NFL Championship played in Green Bay, Wisconsin, not Milwaukee, but Green Bay.

Take football and freezing weather away from Green Bay, nobody outside of the country has ever heard of Green Bay. Actually take the Packers out of Green Bay, nobody outside of Green Bay has ever heard of Green Bay. But they have the Packers and they have Lambeau Field, the New York Yankees of the NFL and most famous and best stadium in the NFL. There’s nothing that better represents the NFL than the Packers and Lambeau Field, with all of its Hall of Famers and championships.

The Packers won the first two Super Bowls, so there was no better place to be, to play this game and weather was part of it. The ultimate of football weather, zero degrees at halftime, windchill probably -20, a skating rink for a football field. Playing a very good and up incoming team, from the biggest city or 2nd biggest city in the South, the Dallas Cowboys.

What made the Ice Bowl great, were the great players who played in, the Hall of Famers and Pro Bowlers who played for both teams. QB Don Meredith, WR Bob Hayes, DT Bob Lilly for the Cowboys, QB Bart Starr, OT Forrest Gregg, OG Jerry Kramer, DE Willy Davis and others for the Packers. I means these teams had to be this great, just to show up to play this game and represent why this is the best bad weather football game of all time.

HBO Documentary Films: The Weight of The Nation (2012)

Source:FreeState Now

I’m all for cutting our healthcare costs, but doing it in a way that encourages personal responsibility and protects individual freedom. Two reasons why I’m against the NYC soda ban, which is an example of the Nanny State on steroids. It fails both tests, personal responsibility and individual freedom. Because of instead of leaving it up to the people to decide how to take care of themselves, it essentially outlaws a bad habit. Doesn’t eliminate it, just outlaws it. Two different things.

When you outlaw something, you are telling people who you can’t do, whatever it is you are outlawing. Doesn’t mean it goes away, it just means whatever has been outlawed, is now illegal. New Yorkers will still drink those large sodas, but take their tax dollars outside of New York City. But when you eliminate something, well guess what happens, I’m speaking basic English here, it goes away. Because you eliminated it. Progressives have this notion, that you can automatically eliminate bad behavior, by outlawing it, through prohibition. They’ve tried this with alcohol, organized gambling and now caffeine and sugar. Guess what those things still continue , just done in different places or done illegally.

As a Liberal I believe in individual freedom, as long as you are not hurting innocent people with your freedom. As well as personal responsibility, that is to say we all make choices in life, for good and bad and have to deal with the consequences of our decisions. So if someone wants to drink soda pop all day, eat nothing but junk food and doesn’t exercise, that’s on them as an adult. But that I and others who don’t make those bad choices and take better care of ourselves, shouldn’t be stuck with cost of John and Jane or whoever who made poor choices with their health.

That people who make good decisions with their lives, should be rewarded for them and that people who make poor choices, should be held accountable for their poor decisions. Including the health costs of those bad decisions. Thats what comes from living in a liberal society and not a Nanny State. We’ll never have a health care system, where people who can’t afford Healthcare, won’t get it, at least at the Emergency Room. Americans will always get health care, at least in emergencies. The question is how is it paid for.

As much as Libertarians may want so-called free health care to go away. But what we can do is force people who have chosen to live unhealthy, a choice they didn’t have to make. To pay for their bad decisions up front. It’s very simple, you tax people for living unhealthy, not prohibiting it, so they can pay up front for the health care that they are going to need later on. As a result of their bad decision-making and you reward people for living healthy. Thats one good way to control our health care costs.

The Onion: Week in Review

Source:The Daily Press

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney announced today that he will clone himself again, to make himself look like a women. Along with undergoing plastic surgery to make that happen, to better reconnect with female voters. But canceled those plans, after being told by Neoconservative Republicans that they wouldn't vote for a women for President. The ironic part of this, that a lot of those voters are women as well. In a press release from the Romney Campaign, they announced that already managing four clones, Conservative Mitt, Liberal Mitt, Moderate Mitt and Neoconservative Mitt, would be too much to handle. To go along with a Female Mitt.

Also in the news, Vice President Jill Biden  announced that Mitt Romney was more qualified to be President of the United States, than himself. But in the next sentenced announced that Mitt would make a worst President than George W. Bush. Apparently Vice President Biden forgot to take his medication. His wife Jill Biden announced that her husband is back home in bed now. And will only be allowed to leave the house, with tape wrapped around his mouth, to prevent him from speaking.

The day in what didn't happen and again this time not from Fox News, who are all on vacation this week. Back in court once again to deal with lawsuits filed against them by Democrats who are suing them for libel, for being called Un-American. That lawsuit filed by the President of the United States himself. Who they claimed is actually the President of the United Mexican States, after seeing President Obama in Mexico City. At an Organization of American States meeting. More details about that lawsuit as they don't come out in the future. But Fox News released a statement saying that they will be back next week, with a special report on the accuracy of birth certificates for everyone born in Hawaii since 1945. Not just Barack Obama.

Talking Points Memo: The War On Everything

Source:Real Life Journal

There are several words that are overused to the point, that I would almost like to see them disappear. Like a hot song, that sounds great for a the first couple of weeks, but then you get tired of hearing it and a song like that generally comes from a one-hit wonder. Someone like the group Dream, that was big ten years ago or so. With their song Love Me or Love Me Not, I think was the title. But if I had to put a list of lets say the top 5-10 words that are overused in America, going from 1-5, it would now be war, which just recently replaced awesome to me as the most overused word in America.

When I think of war, I think of combat, where people can get hurt or even die. Where lives can even be saved. The Iraqi War comes to mind, the Civil War in Syria would be a another one, the Vietnam War. But if you are not familiar with military combat, but somehow familiar with American politics, which would be really odd, you would have to be the ultimate political junky to meet that criteria, where all you are interested in is politics, you only follow campaigns and speeches and don't see anything else in the world, you would think war is purely a political term. The war on this and that and so-fourth. The War on Women, the War on Capitalism, the War on Freedom, the War on Religious Liberty, first of all most of these things are fabricated.

The War on Women, thats not a war. Now you can make the case that House Republicans are making an effort to limit females access to certain health care. But thats not a war, its a campaign at best and they sound funny and perhaps clever and easy to remember, make good sound bites etc. But these aren't wars, they are campaigns at best. I've been guilty of this myself using the word of war with my blogging. I wrote one blog that I called the Neoconservative War on Freedom, but I was half-joking. Perhaps I should've said the Neoconservative Campaign Against Freedom. Which would be accurate and would also be easy to remember.

But a lot of times when people say The War on This or That, they generally aren't talking about a War on This or That. They are generally talking about something specific. Just to round out my list of words that are overused in America top 5-10 that I mentioned earlier. That hopefully may end up on the Late Show Top 10 List.  (Perhaps as soon as beach houses go for sale in North Dakota or just after that) War would be at the top of the list for reasons I've already explained.

Followed by awesome. If everything is awesome, nothing is awesome. It seems like every time someone sees something they like now it's, awesome!!! When I think of the word awesome, I think of something or someone that's really amazing, good or bad, that there is no other way to explain it. Most of things in the world don't meet that criteria. A team isn't awesome just because they won the championship, they might not be awesome at all. A good meal or movie, band, song, whatever, aren't always awesome, they may just be good at that particular time.

Two other words that thank goodness have died down over that last few years, perhaps with Paris Hilton being in the news less (or in jail) are hot and fabulous. For the same reasons as awesome and I said top 5-10 and I've only done a top 4, or how about Fab 4, number five and then I got to wrap up. And I'm sorry if I offend any valley people, girl or guy here, but you guys and gals are big targets of mine. But like and totally, especially when they are put together. Like totally! That is so annoying to me!

And oh my God, especially when they are put together, thats nine and WTF. (Hopefully you know what thats short for) All for the same reasons as awesome. And there you have it my top now list of words that are overused and I'm tired of hearing. But look I understand lazy when it comes to language in America is in and thinking for one's self especially when it comes to expressing themselves and risking standing out, is not really in especially if you come as different. But being a person an individual is exactly that. And with that comes the freedom for people to be themselves, even if they are different from the pack or group

Hewad Patman: Che Guevara True Story

Source:FRS FreeState

Imagine had these socialist revolutionaries in Latin America, like Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were inspired by Socialists in Scandinavia, Britain, France, Germany and others, and not being inspired by Socialists in Russia and China, where countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile and others, how well they could be doing economically today. And how much influence they would have in the World today and not just in Latin America.

Had these revolutionaries followed the Brazilian model, a democratic socialist republic that’s emerging as a world Power, that’s now energy independent, instead of following Russia, China, this beautiful region, deep in natural resources, as well as people, instead of all these nations being developing nations today, maybe they look like the European Union. Maybe they are all economically independent, not dependent on foreign aid. But instead giving out foreign aid. Maybe they have a Latin Union that represents their economic and security interests in the world.

Had Latin America developed an economic system, that promotes public education, that everyone has access to, not just the wealthy, that promotes public infrastructure, healthcare, that people who can take care of themselves should be expected to do that and that the state helps the people who can’t, which is the direction that Cuba is trying to move to right now, Latin America would probably be part of the developed world today. Instead of a collection of emerging countries.

Brazil will be a developed nation, perhaps within ten years from now. Mexico could and should be, but have corruption and crime issues that are holding them back. But a lot of these other countries are really struggling. Like Central America, Venezuela, Bolivia and others. The Brazilian model is what the rest of Latin America should look at. Which is democratic socialism, which is a large private sector, but with a public that can defend and govern the country. And also help people who fall through the cracks of capitalism. Rather than trying to design an economic system where you put all the power in the state and make the people dependent on the state for their survival.