NBA: Unstoppable Bernard King

Source:Real Life Journal 

Bernard King was so smooth, his game just looked so easy with all the ways he had to score. In that sense he reminds me of Clyde Drexler, but Bernard was more than a scorer. Someone who was very good on the boards, a solid defender who also made his teammates better. And I can only imagine how good the New York Knicks would’ve been had he not of broken his knee in 1985. And the Knicks had Bernard in the prime of his career with center Patrick Ewing. Because the Knicks would’ve been a championship contender earlier and perhaps won it all with those two.  

Bernard King was a true natural scorer. Someone who could score in multiple ways and always looking for a way to get the ball in the bucket. And if not from him, then get the ball to his teammate that had the best chance of scoring. He had a great jump shot, one of the smoothest jump shots in NBA history. With the ability to handle the ball, an excellent post game, especially when defenses tried covering him with smaller or bigger men. And ran the floor real well and scored off the break.

The toughest players to defend in basketball, are not just guys who can drive and get to the bucket and look like they can't be covered. But are the player who are triple threats, which I know is a cliche. But players who can handle the ball, post up and shoot. Players like that are very difficult to defend because you have to cover them everywhere. And be on alert for that player to do anything with the basketball. That was Bernard King and again without the knee injury, we are talking about probably a top ten scorer in the history of the NBA.

C-SPAN: Video: NBC News: 1973 U.S. Senate Watergate Committee: James McCord Testimony

Source:The FreeState

This was extremely important the Senate Watergate Committee hearings in 1973. Because it gave Americans an inside look through their TV’s at how their Congress operates. At least on the Senate side of the U.S. Capitol. No cable TV back in 73 and no C-SPAN which came around in 1979. TV cameras weren’t allowed in Congress at all until the U.S. House passed a bill in 1979 to allow networks to film the House of Representatives, the House floor and committee hearings. The Senate did that in 1986. And this just happened to be one of the most important Congressional committee hearings of all-time in the Watergate Committee.

As far as James McCord, how someone with his professional background in the CIA as an electronics expert and the intelligence and education that he most of had, ever get involved in a third-rate burglary where they were caught the night of the failed operation by Washington Police, I may never know. You would have to think someone with his intelligence and education and hopefully character to work for the CIA the way he did must have known better. But that unfortunately can be said about most of the people involved in the Watergate burglary. Good productive educated people who did something really stupid.

James McCord being one of the failed rookie burglars in this operation. You would think that someone who would order a break in like this would hire people who actually have experience doing operations like this. And not just as spies oversees, but perhaps hiring professional burglars. People who aren’t killers, but people who have long track records of successfully pulling off operations like this to steal things of value. But instead the person who ordered this operation, who I believe was Attorney General John Dean, who just happened to be the Chief Law Enforce Officer in the United States when, turns to people without any experience in this line of work.

Frank Klassen: Video: Joseph Welch Versus U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy

Source:The Daily Post

Joe McCarthy’s, whole strategy in these hearings was based around guilt by association. “If you know a Communist, or were in the same room of a Communist, or part of the same group as a Communist, you are automatically a Communist. Which of course is a bad thing that must be called out.” As if you are an American traitor, or something. Rather than having hearings based on whether or not there are Communist spies in the United States Government. In this video, you hear Chairman McCarthy, question the American allegiance of Joe Welch. Who just happened to be the Chief Counsel of the U.S. Army. Which just goes to the lack of depth and knowledge and perhaps honesty that Joe McCarthy and his staff had about the people they were investigating.

You don’t become Chief Counsel of the U.S. Army if you’re Un-American. I mean seriously, what is the main function of the U.S. Army, but to defend the United States. I mean, the stupidity, or just plain dishonesty and political games that Joe McCarthy would play to do what? Scare Americans about communism? Set up a presidential run for 1960? They had almost nothing on most of the people they were supposedly investigating in these hearings. As this hearing shows. Guilt by Association, could’ve been and perhaps should’ve been the title of these hearings. “If you associate with a Communist, or perhaps just met one at one point, that much mean you’re a Communist as well.” Which was basically the thinking, if you want to call it that, of Joe McCarthy and his staff at these hearings.

It’s almost as if Joe McCarthy and his staff didn’t know they were on national TV. Perhaps not even aware that TV had been invented yet and close if not universal yet. And that everything that they said and did during these hearings and supposedly reported, would be seen at some point by the entire country. And that all of their paper-thin evidence would be seen and shown to the country as well. And made to look like it actually is. Which is paper-thin, with no there, there and not just Ed Murrow and his See it Now show over at CBS News. But the other news shows and radio and national papers as well. That they didn’t have what they needed, or even close to having what they needed to make Joe Welch and others look like Communists and anti-American.

Claudia 101: Video: Sophia Loren, Mambo Italiano

Source:The Daily Post 

I do not know of a better looking or sounding Italian women American or otherwise than Sophia Loren. An absolute goddess a hot sexy baby-face cutie with serious sex appeal. As well as an incredible talent with a great voice, moves, body and ability to make people laugh. One of the best looking and sounding women of any ethnicity of all-time. You know, except for all of those things or mambo, otherwise just another ordinary women. If you were able to forget about all of Sophia’s qualities. Like you were, I don’t know, blind and death at the same time. 

Sophia said that sex appeal is fifty-percent of what you have and fifty-percent of what people think you have. She might be right, but in her case its obvious what she has. When you think of goddess’s and not just physically incredibly attractive women, as Sophia obvious is, but I think to be a goddess you have to be more than physical. And be able to show you’re more than that and better yet be able to communicate and move what you have to show everyone. Which is obviously what Sophia has with the great face, voice and body

My Sexy Cowgirls: Three Sexy Latina Cowgirls in Great Western Shootout

Source:The Daily Press

Whatever Spanish that I know and I'm guessing it is somewhere around two-hundred words to the point I can somewhat casually converse in Spanish and joke around a little in it, but what Spanish I do know and I'm being completely honest here, I've learned accidentally. And what I mean about that is that I've picked up a lot of Spanish simply by watching TV. Similar to people who've immigrated to America and what English they know before they got here was picked up from American TV.

And I mention that because in the late 1990s and early 2000s I started getting into Spanish language TV in America. And I'll be honest again here, really just for one reason. I'm flipping around one night and I see some Latin American soap opera on I believe Univision and it had these beautiful sexy women on it. So I started watching more and more soap operas on Univision and then later Telemundo and I start picking up some Spanish. And then later on I start working with Central American and Caribbean Latino immigrants and picked up some more Spanish from them.

What we call in America Western cowboy and cowgirl culture, is what you see in this video. But it takes place in I believe South America, perhaps Bolivia. And the acting is not very good to be honest with you, but these scenes and movies are pretty popular in Latin America, but with much better acting, programs and movies. Or at least I hope so, but it is always interesting to see cowgirls, sexy cowgirls especially taking on bad cowboys, meaning bad guys and coming out on top.

Documentary Fan: 1952 Republican National Convention: U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen Defends Robert Taft

Source:The FreeState

The political wave or tide that Senator Everett Dirksen is talking about in this speech is the 1952 Republican sweep. Other than holding Congress from 1947-48, they were completely shutout of power in Washington and the Federal Government, at least as far as being in charge of anything from 1933-53. The Democratic Party, won five straight presidential elections during this period. And again except for 1947-48, held both the House and Senate in Congress during this whole period as well. That changed in 1952 thanks to Dwight Eisenhower as he won the presidency and Congressional Republicans won back the House and Senate in 1952.

Senator Dirksen, initially supported Mr. Conservative at least during his time, Senator Robert Taft for president in 1952. They were both strong Conservative Republicans, from the Midwest, who served in Congress together for twelve-years. They knew each other and the other’s politics and character very well. Dwight Eisenhower, hadn’t announced he was a Republican until he decided to run for president in 1952. He could he being a career U.S. Army officer. So it wasn’t very clear really until General Eisenhower became President of the United States where the General was politically and ideologically.

The Republican Party in 1952 whether they nominated General Dwight Eisenhower or Senator Robert Taft for president, felt this year was definitely their time. Of course they felt that way in 1948 when they barely lost that election as well with Tom Dewey. But 1952 was different for them because they had a great nominee and perhaps the most popular person in America at the time in Ike Eisenhower. And of course the Democrats held the White House for twenty-years at this point and held both chambers of Congress for most of that time as well. President Harry Truman, had been president for eight years at this point and he and his administration were unpopular. So Republicans had a lot to feel good about in 1952.

The Young Turks: Bill O’Reilly: 'The Truth About Martin Luther King Jr.'

Source:Free State MD

I don’t know where Bill O’Reilly gets the 75% of African-American babies being born out-of-wedlock. But he does have a point about the state of the current African-American community. And would have problems with it and disagreements with the community. And would want to see more done so this community doesn’t have more poverty, less education, fewer fathers in the households, more crime and murders and people in prison than the rest of the country as a whole.

But I guess it wouldn’t be The O’Reilly Finger, I mean Factor, if Billy wasn’t just stating the obvious and emphasizing the negative. Fifty-years after the I Have a Dream speech, fewer African-Americans now live in poverty, more go to school and finish school, graduate from college, live in the middle class. African-Americans, still not doing as well as Caucasians, regardless of ethnicity, or Asian-Americans. And that is still the challenge for this community. To come to par with the rest of the country and not have negative statistics that are twice the average of the entire country.

To accomplish this, more African-Americans and Americans in general in poverty, need to go to good schools, finish school, further their education, not have kids until they’re personally and financially ready to take care of them and then actually raise their kids. And this get to men in the community that are man enough to create babies and life, but not man enough to raise their own kids. And leave that to the mother who isn’t doing very well herself, yet ready to raise kids all by herself.

Sullen Toys: Martin Luther King: I Have A Dream Speech - August 28, 1963

Source:Free State MD

Dr. King’s I Have a Dream Speech, is the crown jewel of the American civil rights movement. Because it laid out exactly what the vision of the movement is. That it is about jobs, justice and equal rights. Which is why you hear Dr. King quoting the United States Constitution that guarantees certain basic human rights to all Americans, not just European-Americans, or European-American men, but the entire country. All of us all Americans share these basic constitutional rights. Which was exactly what the American civil rights movement was about a fight for freedom.

Not too different what the American Revolution was about a fight for freedom as well and to have these constitutional rights. A big difference being that the Dr. King wing of the movement was non-violent from its start, to its core and to its end. And the fact that the Europeans who won the American Revolutionary War didn’t intend to include other Americans in the U.S. Constitution, the fact is they did when they said all men have the basic human rights. And Dr. King and his movement did was to say they are here to collect those rights. That the United States Government owes them under the U.S. Constitution.

I mean just look at the words of the I Have a Dream speech. Dr. King saying that he has a dream that one day his children would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Here’s someone whose economic politics at least would make him a Democratic Socialist today and yet he’s calling for a color-blind and even race-blind society. Which would actually put him to the Left of a lot of people who claim to be his supporters today. Who are very race conscience and even have racial if not racist views towards Caucasians, even Jews and especially Southern Anglo-Saxons. People of British background.

Minister Malcolm X: Speaks on Black Economics

Source:Real Life Journal

Malcolm X talking about empowering an entire community so they can take care of themselves. And not have to be dependent on government or people who’ve been holding them down for their economic survival. But empowering people to be able to take care of themselves and build their own community. Create their own jobs, business’s economic growth, wealth. And he was talking about educating the African-American community so they can do these things for themselves.

I think even Conservatives could respect Malcolm X. Not his racial rhetoric and I don’t respect that aspect about him, because I’m a Liberal. Not because I’m not. But what Conservatives can respect about Malcolm X is for his call for economic freedom and independence. Built around education and economic development. So African-Americans don’t need a welfare state in order to take care of them. And be dependent on public assistance in order to survive. But for African-Americans to be able to create their own economic freedom and independence.

Documentary Fan: Video: ABC News, Everett Dirksen's Washington

Source:The Daily Post

When was the last time that a Congressional leader was loved and respected by both parties. That is how much Congress has changed since Everett Dirksen was there because he was loved and respected by both parties when he was in Congress and when he was the Senate Republican Leader. But now Republicans and Democrats in Congress tend to look at each other as enemies and not colleagues or even opponents. Not many people being more familiar with how Congress worked than Everett Dirksen, who served a total of thirty-four years in Congress. Both in the House of Representatives and Senate. House from 1933-49 and the Senate from 1951-59. And was also Senate Minority Leader from 1959-69.

You might be able to say that Minority Leader Dirksen had all the power in the Republican Party in Washington in the 1960s. Excluding 1960 with President Dwight Eisenhower and 1969 with President Richard Nixon. You might be able to say that from 1961-69 Minority Leader Dirksen was the Washington power structure for the GOP. Because Democrats held the White House and both chambers of Congress from 1961-69 in this period. Huge majorities in both the House and Senate from 1961-67. Which meant for Congressional Republicans to get anything done in this period or to stop legislation that the Congressional Democratic Leadership was pushing, they needed both Leader Dirksen and the Southern Caucus of right-wing Democrats in Congress.

The 1960s was also a much different time as far as Washington politics and Congressional politics. Not all Democrats were liberal or progressive. The Democratic Party had the right-wing Southern Caucus in the House and Senate. The Democratic Party leaned Left, but had a large right-wing faction. Not all Congressional Republicans were conservative, but certainly leaned right. And they had a progressive faction in the Northeast. Which meant for either President Jack Kennedy or President Lyndon Johnson to get things done in Congress, especially in the Senate, they needed Minority Leader Dirksen’s help to cutoff filibusters from Conservative Republicans and right-wing Democrats. And to bring along some of his Progressive Senators.

Similar to Senator Robert Byrd and Everett Dirksen was sort of the Bob Byrd of him time, but if neither one of them weren’t in Congress for so long, they could’ve both been Congressional historians. And of course a lot of the knowledge they picked up about Congress had to do how long that they were in Congress. Both serving in the House and Senate, but also because they both served in the Congressional Leadership. So when you hear Everett Dirksen talk about Congress, you know you’re hearing from someone who actually knew what they were talking about. Someone who was not just respected, but loved by both Republicans and Democrats and someone who represents the best of our Congress and its two chambers.

Korean 701: Why Liberal Democracy is Important

Source:FRS FreeState

Liberal Democrat which is how I describe my personal politics and personal political philosophy. And what that means because liberalism and what it means to be a Liberal means different things to different people. To lets say today's so-called Progressives, liberalism is about government creating all sorts of programs to take care of people. I’m putting that loosely, but that is what it comes down to. 

Today's so-called Progressives want a lot of government programs especially from the Federal level there to take care of people. Which is what is known as so-called modern liberalism. Libertarians idea of liberalism is who they are which is libertarian. And when they talk about classical liberalism, they are talking about libertarianism. And have a society so free of government especially the markets. And from this the people and business in a Libertarian Utopia would be free without government interference.

A classical Libertarian lets say, only wants government to come in when innocent people are hurt. And to punish those who hurt innocent people. But that is not liberalism, but libertarianism. Liberals believe in both freedom and democracy, a liberal amount of both. Not government, which are too different things and the liberal idea about democracy is yes the right to vote and speak freely and assemble and all of those other great liberal values. But the right for free individuals to live freely in a liberal democracy, a free society.

That government should not be there to protect us from ourselves and to take care of us. But to protect our freedom and enforce our individual rights from those who would take them away. And to help people in need who do not have the freedom to take care of themselves, get the tools that they need so they can have freedom as well. Not take care of people, or try to create a risk-free society, but to protect our freedom and to see that everyone can live in freedom and not need government to take care of them.

The Birch Swinger's: Bobby Kennedy's Speech For Humanity

Source:Free State MD

Bobby Kennedy, laying out perfectly what it means to live in a liberal democracy. What individual liberty is about the right for Americans to live their own lives and live in freedom. Without government infringing on individual lives and their rights to live their own lives. All the freedom that Americans need is laid out for us in the United States Constitution. Starting with the First Amendment, with our right to speak, right to assemble, freedom of press, freedom to worship, or not worship.

The Second Amendment, that grants us the right to self-defense. The Fourth Amendment that protects our right to privacy. So government can’t interfere with how individual Americans live their own lives. Including our property rights, that protect our rights to ourselves, but also the property and wealth that we own. And then you go to the Equal Protection Clause, that protects our rights not to be discriminated based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality. I’ve blogged about this before, but the United States Constitution is not the problem with America.

The problem with America, is our public officials on the Far-Left and Far-Right. Who don’t understand, agree with and ignore the Constitution. Who somehow view that their statist philosophy is more important than the Constitution. And in their narrow minds, gives them the right to impose their values on what it means to be an American. Over individuals and the Constitution itself. But as long government protects our Constitution, then they are also protecting all the freedom that we need to live and live well.

Bat Man: 60 Minutes, Corcoran State Prison (1997)

Source:FreeState Now

This is about the gladiator fights that went on at Corcoran State Prison in the California in the early and mid 1990s. That were run by Corcoran guards and set up by them. Where guards there would find inmates who didn’t like each other, or perhaps didn’t even know each other, to fight each other. And I believe put money on the fights that the inmates wouldn’t see a dime of. What happened at Corcoran is just another example of prison slave labor and perhaps the prison industrial complex as a whole. Where inmates are exploited for profits by corporations who make money from taxpayers and the inmates.

I’ve seen the MSNBC Lockup documentary on Corcoran and I’ve seen other shows about Corcoran. And to me at least it looks like a fairly efficient prison. Where some of the worst and most violent and probably evil prison inmates and criminals in America, are serving their time at Corcoran. And lot of them are their for life and doing sentences close to that. And yet what I’ve seen at least Corcoran looks like a fairly well run prison. Especially considering how tight their budget is and the lack of resources that California puts into Corcoran and how understaffed they are. And yet they generally do a pretty good job. But those gladiator fights did happen there.

Malcolm X Network: Video: James Baldwin on Malcolm X

Source:The Daily Post 

James Baldwin was from the Martin L. King school of civil rights. That African-Americans needed to work with other Americans in order to get their freedom. Which is what separated him from Malcolm X who had more of a revolutionary approach to civil rights.The MLK approach to equal rights and equal rights enforcement was not only more successful and the better course to achieving equal constitutional rights enforcement under law, but it would’ve been the only one that could’ve been successful in this movement. Because it was inclusionary and t brought in not just African-Americans, but Caucasian, Latino, Jewish, the mainstream media that was mostly male Caucasian at this point. And all the different media outlets regardless of race. And members of Congress both Democrats and Republicans that was necessary to pass the civil rights laws of the 1960s.

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman: Poverty and Equality

Source:FreeState Now

The fact is, if you live in poverty, you don’t live in freedom, but you live in poverty. If you don’t have the freedom to live your own life and are dependent on others for your economic well-being, whether it is public assistance, or individuals who’ve voluntarily taken care of you, you don’t have the freedom to live your own life. Because you are dependent on others. And for people who are in poverty to have the freedom to live their own life, they need the tools to escape poverty and live in freedom. I agree with Milton, that people and the private sector do have the responsibility to help people in need be able to get on their own feet and help them pay their bills in the short-term as well.

But where I disagree with Milton, well on a couple of things, actually. Government, is not just buildings, but the people who work in those buildings. And also the people who send those people to the government buildings to work for them. Meaning the voters. But where I also disagree with Milton has to do with government and poverty. Government, at least in America, doesn’t have the responsibility to take care of physically and mentally able people who are capable of working full-time. But for whatever the reasons do not have the skills to get themselves the jobs that will allow for them to take care of themselves. But government, does have a responsibility to see that people who are down first get what they need to help them get by in the short-term. But also to help them get themselves on their own two feet. That comes from economic development in low-income communities. But also education and job training for those people as well. So they can get themselves a good job and get themselves out of poverty all together.

The reason why government has this responsibility, because it is responsible for the country. Not to take care of everyone and manage their lives for them. But to see that everyone has the opportunity to do well in America. So the economy can be as strong as possible. With as many workers as possible, but also as many productive workers as possible. Who have what they need to do well in this country. And capitalism and private enterprise is a great thing in America. But if you don’t have the skills you need to do well, you’re not going to do well in that system. And for those people government has a role to see that no none goes without. A long with the private sector, especially non-profit charities, but also to see that the resources are available for the people who’ve been left behind can get themselves on their own two feet.

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Bette's Midler's Farewell to Johnny Carson

Source:Real Life Journal

I don't know if there could possible be a better way to send off Johnny Carson so to speak on his Tonight Show, The Tonight Show at least as far as I'm concern than with Bette Midler singing to him. Because of her song One For My Baby with the lyrics Set Em Up Joe and One More For The Road. That song perfectly sends Johnny out and perfectly summarizes what is happening here. That Johnny Carson is ending thirty-years as The King of Late Night as the host of The Tonight Show. And then you throw in her voice and her baby-face adorable expressions and how sweet she is, she was just perfect for this part.

I'm not a big fan of Bette Midler, at least her music. I think she's a hell of an actress and one of the funniest people in Hollywood if not all-time, but she does have a great ability to put things in their place and the way they are. And sending Johnny out with One For My Baby is a perfect example of that. Especially when you consider how much Bette and Johnny truly love and respect each other. As I think is pretty obvious in this performance. Johnny had perfect timing with his comedy and I he knew himself so well and how we wanted to be remembered and go out. And Bette Midler is a perfect example of that.

GOP Weekly Address: Video: Governor Mike Pence Delivers GOP Weekly Address on ObamaCare

Source:The FreeState 

Again with ObamaCare, because that is all Republicans have to talk about. As well as some guy named Barack Obama, whoever the hell he is. I heard he’s the President of some country. When you don’t have an agenda and policies of your own, at least an agenda you’re proud enough to talk about, you go on the negative to make the other side look worst than you are. “Hey, I know you don’t like us. But the other guy is worst, so you should dislike them more.” Governor Mike Pence, which is a good thing for Washington and Congress that he is no longer a U.S. Representative, is the perfect example of this. All the guy has in this short video is, “ObamaCare is bad” and his GOP talking points about cutting spending and regulations, taxes and everything else. Without being able to lay out what he’s actually done. How he’s cut spending, waste and taxes.

Minister Malcolm X: March on Washington Was Deceptive (1963)

Source:FRS FreeState 

In this speech, you can definitely see the difference in methods and strategy between Malcolm X and Dr. King. Dr. King understood that for African-Americans to get their freedom and equal rights under law, they would have to work with members of the majority population. Meaning Caucasian-Americans, to get those civil rights laws passed. Whereas Malcolm X, at least early in the early 1960s, saw that as treasonous to work with what he would call the ‘White man’. That African-Americans should already have their freedom and equal rights. And that the United States Government should just give those things to the African-American community. Dr. King was smart enough as the brilliant leader that he was to know that those things weren’t going to just be given to his community. Especially by racist Southerners in Congress and at the local and state levels in Southern states. That they would have to fight and work to get them and go over the bigots heads and work with non-racists in the Caucasian-American community.

The March on Washington, was very successful, despite what Malcolm X said. Because in that speech, Dr. King lays out the whole vision of the civil rights movement. An America, where his children and all children aren’t judge by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Where all men and women are equal under law. And not treated better, or worst simply because of their color, or race. That was not good enough for Malcolm X and his supporters and the broader Black Power movement and the New Left that emerged in the late 1960s. That was against the War in Vietnam, but the American capitalist economic system and the power structure in general. The broader Black Power movement and New-Left were revolutionaries. They didn’t believe in working with others to get what they want. But that they should just simply take what they want.

Malcolm X, was part of the Black Power movement. Not the socialist elements of that movement. Because he wasn’t a Socialist, but the revolutionary elements of that movement. That said, “African-Americans, should have their freedom now and we aren’t going to wait around, or try to get laws passed giving us what we should’ve already had in the first place.” And I’ve blogged this before, but Dr. King and Malcolm X, represent not just two wings of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, but two era’s as well. Dr. King, represents the 1960s, when these laws were passed that he had a lot to do with the passage of those laws. Because he understood like a good politician does, that you have to work with others to get laws passed and get new policies. Malcolm X, represents the post-civil rights movement. The vision for how African-Americans not only have equal rights under law, but an economic vision for how the community can succeed in America. Built around education, economic development and personal responsibility in the community.

Billy Wilder: Kiss Me Stupid (1964)

Source:The Daily Press

I gotta admit, the first twenty minutes of this movie is very slow. Just as slow as the small Nevada town that it takes place in. That the natives in this movie seem to want to escape. Except for the first few minutes of Dean Martin when he’s performing in Las Vegas and he’s doing his musical comedy routine. But Dino comes back into the movie as someone whose just passing through town on the way to Los Angeles. And his car gets stuck there, or that is what the mechanic tells him. And one of the locals just happens to be there to put him up for the night. I guess that is what they call small town hospitality.

Dean Martin and Kim Novak, really are the whole movie. At least the good watchable parts of it. Felicia Farr, looks great in it as well and also looks great in it. But the Ray Walston character, the jealous husband, but that is because he is way out of his league and over his head. Married to a women played by Felicia Farr, who looks like a Las Vegas showgirl or performer, living in the middle of nowhere. Between Smallville and Tinyville. Who married way down to a guy whose a wannabe songwriter who makes his living giving music lessons from his home. To the five people in town who want to learn music. Whose always worried about losing his gorgeous wife, because he’s not good enough for her.

Kim Novak, is her usual hot sexy baby girl adorable self. Only this time she plays a women who seems to know what she wants and where she’s going. Who has a healthy amount of self-esteem. During her career, she tended to play women who lacked self-confidence and never sure if they were good enough. Not that much different from the real-life Kim Novak. The video on this post pretty much lays out the plot and what it’s about. I’m not sure I can add anything to it without sounding repetitive. But all the characters except for the Felicia Farr character, who might be the only real person in the movie, want Dean Martin for something. Which is to make it big and leave their small town life.

Liberty Underground: Garry Johnson on Individual Freedom

Source:FreeState Now

The fight to preserve individual liberty shall always go on. As long as there are statists on the Far-Right and Far-Left in America trying to take our freedom away.Freedom of choice I believe is the best way to look at freedom and I mean individual freedom. Should people have the right to make their own decisions over their own personal and economic affairs or not. And if they have the right should they also be held personally responsible for their own decisions for good and bad or not. My answer and Gary Johnson’s answers to both questions is of course yes.

The freedom for people to control their own lives and then be held personally responsible for their own decisions over their own lives for good and bad. Not the freedom to hurt innocent people intentionally or otherwise, but the freedom to chart their own course in life. And to have their basic constitutional rights responsibly enforces and enforced equally for everyone. That the job of government is to protect the innocent from predators who would hurt them. Not to try to run their lives for them and try to protect them from themselves either from a personal or economic standpoint.

That is what Gary Johnson argues and has argued his entire political career at least as long as I’ve heard of him going back to the late 1990s when he was Governor of New Mexico. The ability for free people to make free choices and then be held accountable for the decisions that they make. And perhaps where I would disagree with Governor Johnson is that government has a role to educate people on potential choices that they might make. As well as regulate these activities to protect the innocent from predators. Not to run these activities or try to prohibit them. But make sure that they are as safe and as responsible as possible.

Washington Redskins: Sonny Jurgenson & Billy Kilmer: The Sonny-Billy Rivalry

Source:Real Life Journal 

Sonny Jurgensen was clearly a better quarterback than Billy Kilmer. But Bill better fit head coach George Allen’s conservative offensive personality better. So George could say "see this is why we need to run more and Bill won’t take as many chances throwing the ball. Because his arm wasn’t as good as Sonny’s". But a better head coach with perhaps a better understanding of offensive football, who didn't have a conservative defensive mindset that George Allen had, would've known better. And what worked better for the Redskins offensively. 

There are many horrible tragedies of Vince Lombardi dying and when he did. In 1970 at the age of fifty-seven when he could've probably coached another 5-10 years had he taken better care of himself. But one of those tragedies that Sonny paid the heaviest price for with the Redskins, was George Allen coming in, in 1971 as the head coach/general manager of the club. The Redskins did pretty well under Allen. Seven winning seasons, five playoff appearances, an NFC East title and NFC title. 

But had Vince Lombardi lived and continued on with the Redskins in the 1970s, Sonny Jurgenson not only finishes his career with the Redskins, which he did, but he would've remained the full-time starter with the Redskins at quarterback, had he stayed healthy. Because the Lombardi would've figured out quickly that Sonny was the better quarterback than Billy Kilmer. And the Redskins would've won more games, more NFC East titles, played in more Super Bowls and perhaps won at least one Super Bowl in the 1970s. 

Golden Cyber: Wonder Woman Defeated by The Pied Piper

Source:Real Life Journal

It's kind of hard for me to imagine someone as strong as Wonder Baby, I mean Wonder Women could be defeated by, well disco music. You would think someone strong enough to knock down brick walls and jump up on tall buildings and beat up 300 pound men, would be strong enough to take on disco music. Without falling asleep. Wait, I guess disco music was really that bad. And perhaps boring enough to literally knock people out. Even wonder goddess’ like Wonder Woman. Perhaps disco was to Wonder Women what kryptonite was to Superman. Yeah, maybe the Pied Piper was the only one in the history of the Wonder Woman TV series to discover Women Women’s weakness. Which is really bad music that puts her to sleep. She might be strong enough to tackle bears and stop speeding cars with he bare hands from the outside, but disco music will bring her down to size.

General Blanketchips: Wonder Woman: The Girl From Ilandia

Source:Real Life Journal

Allan Arbus, who of course played Dr. Sidney Friedman on MASH, showing his versatility here. By not just doing comedy, but doing action/comedy. Playing a smartass bad guy. Who kidnaps Wonder Girl, or whoever the girl was. And of course the Wonder Goddess, or Wonder Baby, which is what I call Wonder Woman, because she was so hot, sexy and adorable, comes in and saves the day. This episode was from 1978. So I’m probably two years old at this point, so no I don’t remember this episode. But I saw the repeat of this show last summer on Me-TV. The writing on this show always seemed twenty-years behind. And it seemed stuck in the, gee that’s swell universe of people who wouldn’t use strong language to save their lives. And the writing looked like it was from a show from the late 1950s instead of the late 1970s. But this scene on this show was pretty good.

National Review: Video: NBC's Meet the Press: Ana Navarro to U.S. Representative Steve King: 'Get Therapy'

Source:The FreeState 

The more Representative Steve King talks about immigration, the worst off Neoconservative Republicans and people with mental issues look in America. And perhaps people who smoke too much pot or drink to much and are struggling to keep a strong base with reality. By trying to make Latino immigrants look like invaders or something that are Un-American and do not deserve to be in America. And as a result the better the chances for immigration reform in America because of how loony these Neo-Cons look.  

And the more Republicans who are interested in immigration reform listen to people about it who are not on the Far-Right in the GOP or the rest of the country, the better the chances of immigration reform in America. As you see in this video with Ana Navarro who is a GOP political strategist, who works for Republicans, naturally and Representative Steve King, who if he wasn't in the U.S. House, would probably be a mental patient somewhere. What you see is Ana Navaro in touch with immigration and what needs to be done. With Representative King doing nothing, but repeating Far-Right talking points. 

Liberty Pen: Martha Burk: The Gender Pay Gap

Source:FreeState Now

The gender pay gap is only a real issue as far a concern, if men are being paid more simply because they are men. That if employers pay their male employees more money simply, because they are male and not female. Because of course that would be real gender discrimination. But if men are paid more because they tend to work jobs that pay more than jobs that women tend to work, that of course that is not gender discrimination, but is called capitalism and the private market. If women were simply being paid less because they were women and employers decided to pay their male employees more than their female employees, then there would be a national scandal. And all sorts of civil rights lawsuits would be filed and it would be all over the news.

Men and women should be paid and generally are for the work that they do. If men and women are literally working the same jobs with the same experience and have been with the company the same period, but the man or women is doing a better job than the other and gets a bigger raise, or gets a raise while the other doesn’t, then how is that unfair. That is how private enterprise works. People get paid for the work that they do. It would be anti-business and a bad business practice to pay employees male, or female, just because of their gender. Especially if they are less productive and it would also send a bad message. Because you would be telling the mediocre employee that they can make more money by being mediocre. And telling the productive employee that doing a good or great job won’t make them more money.

Martin Luther King & Malcolm X Striking Similarities

Source:Real Life Journal

I have a lot of respect for both Dr. Martin L. King and Minster Malcolm X. But where they are different relates to what part of the civil rights movement that they represent.

Dr. King, was the most important leader in the 1960s civil rights struggle. Because without his non-violent approach those laws simply do not get passed. Because non-African-Americans wouldn’t take this movement seriously. And basically would’ve seen this movement that was of course multi-racial and multi-ethnic as thugs, criminals and terrorists. But because the Dr. King wing of the movement was non-violent, the so-called mainstream media took it seriously and gave it fair coverage. And as a result Americans took noticed of it and got involved especially young people, but public officials and celebrities in entertainment that had influence. As well so these marchers and activists were seen as peaceful, mainstream and responsible.

But where I give the edge to Malcolm X, was his movement was freedom from start to finish. And didn’t see the future of the African-American community as dependent on the New Deal, or Great Society. But was someone who was a big believer in education and opportunity. So people would have the freedom to take care of themselves and not have to live in poverty. And would’ve continued to push this approach of empowering African-Americans and perhaps others, to have the freedom to live their own lives. And not have to live off of public assistance in order to take care of themselves. Whereas Dr. King, was about redistribution of wealth. Taking money from the wealthy to take care of the poor. Which would’ve been the next stage of his movement had he lived. But what Malcolm X, was pushing for was empowering a whole community. To be able to take care of themselves and create their own wealth instead.

Dr. King and Minister Malcolm, are the two most important players in this movement. I think that is obvious but they represented different wings of this movement. And moving forward post civil rights of the 1960s would’ve pushed different economic agendas.

Research Channel: Martin Luther King Jr. Lecture in Social Justice

Source:Free State MD

Martin L. King was a true Social Democrat. Not a Marxist, or a Communist, but someone who believed in using government to redistribute wealth from the wealthy and use that money through government to provide for low-income people who lacked the basic tools to live well in America. Which in many ways is what democratic socialism is about. To see to it that a few people don’t do so well, while so many others live without the basic necessities.

And had Dr. King lived past 1968 and wasn’t assassinated at thirty-nine years old in 1968, the next stage of his movement would have been about poverty in America economic and social justice. And perhaps would have been the modern Bernie Sanders, or Henry Wallace of his generation. And perhaps we would have seen the Green Party emerged in the 1970s as a true Social Democratic Party. That could compete with Democrats and Republicans.

Economically speaking, I see Senator Bernie Sanders as the Martin King of his generation. Depending on how you define generations and would Senator Sanders and Dr. King, be in the same generation, or not. But two men who are essentially anti-wealth. That being wealthy and economically independents are bad things in their view, when others go without. So in their view, you need a big government to take from the well-off, to give to the less-fortunate, so no one has to live in poverty.

House Republicans: Video: Weekly Republican Address 8/17/13: U.S. Representative Shelley Moore Capito

Source:The FreeState

House Republicans, clearly know what they are against when it comes to healthcare reform. But haven’t figured out what they are for. Which will be a big problem for them as they consider shutting down government over defunding the Affordable Care Act. Or run against it next year when they are questioned about what they would do instead. Where’s the so-called party of ideas when it comes to health care reform? Or maybe they love the old health care system with how expensive it was more than the current system. And are just saying, “ObamaCare is bad and lets just go back to the old system. Where people can lose their health insurance simply because they need it.” But people don’t sign up for health insurance, simply in order to pay insurance companies. That they actually expected to be able to take out what they paid into once they actually needed it. Which is what insurance is about. Putting money down, so you can have it and use it when you actually need it. Regardless for whatever it is that you’re insuring.

Isabelle Laplante: Video: Kenny Rogers, The Gambler: Know When to Hold Them & When to Fold Them

Source:The Daily Post

I saw The Gambler movie last night the, 1991 NBC version of it with Kenny Rogers and Reba McEntire. Which is a reason why I’m posting this now and I knew that I already liked the song. Heard it for the first time 25-30 years ago, but as I heard it again in the movie last nigh, it got me to thinking about how real this song is and not just about gambling, but that it is a good song about life as well. 

And something that people need to know not just how to read poker players if they play poker, but about how to read people in general. Especially if they are competing against them, but how to know when to appreciate what you have which is something that we should always do. But especially when we are at risk of losing things that we cherish and that do we really want to risk losing everything to obtain new things. 

We don't want to lose things that we truly value and cherish and even need even  if the potential payout is better if we were to be successful, or what we already have is so special that we feel like we can’t afford to give that up even for bigger gains. That losing everything is worst then gaining new things is good if that makes any sense. That gambling just isn't gambling. That you need to take calculated risks in life and understand what you could lose. And then decide if it is worth losing or not.

Hoover Institution: Video: Issues on My Mind: George P. Schultz: Drugs, The War With No Winner

Source:The FreeState

It’s good to hear a Republican and a Conservative, who worked for both President Richard Nixon, when the War on Drugs was declared and President Ronald Reagan, when the Drug War was escalated in the 1980s, like George Schultz. Listen to what Secretary Schultz says here. “We have forty years of experience and we know that the War on Drugs doesn’t work. That it’s a failure, that we have more people who use illegal narcotics than other developed countries and have higher rates of illegal drugs use than our competitors.” Now, George Schultz, was Secretary of Treasury for President Nixon and then Secretary of State for President Reagan. And even though he might be the best Secretary of State the United States has ever had, he’s not directly responsible for the War on Drugs.

But Schultz, was a very trusted member of both President Nixon’s and President Reagan’s cabinet and knew about the War on Drugs and saw reports about them. And is someone who is very interested in current affairs, especially as they relate to America. And has thought and researched a lot about issues other than economic and foreign policy. He knows about our high incarceration rate and how many of those people in prison are there for something relating t the War on Drugs. And that a lot of those people are there for simple usage, or possession. He knows what our narcotics issue was pre-War on Drugs and where we are forty years later.

So to hear someone with the depth of knowledge, intelligence and experience as a George Schultz, who was a cabinet officer in both Richard Nixon’s and Ronald Reagan’s administration’s, who also happens to be a Conservative Republican, say the War on Drugs has failed and he was part of two administration’s where the War on Drugs was pushed real hard, is very refreshing. And it is also very refreshing to hear someone of the background of a George Schultz, say we can do better. There are better ways and policies in how we deal with narcotics in America. That we shouldn’t be promoting narcotics usage, but at the same time we shouldn’t be holding people criminally responsible and sending them to prison as convicted felons, simply for using narcotics.

Cuiro Phile: Video: Unknown Biker Babe in Head to Toe Leather

Source:The Daily Post 

I have no idea what show this is and it does look like a show and not a movie. But base on the accents I have to say this is British TV and perhaps BBC. Which is a shame and not that it is perhaps BBC or perhaps other British TV, but that it is unknown and that the actress, the biker chick on this show and in this video is unknown. Because she plays a great looking biker chick head to toe in biker leathers. The black leather jacket, the black leather jeans all laced up. A very sexy biker chick leathered up in biker leathers with the jacket, jeans and boots. Would’ve been nice to see her on her bike and riding the bike. As well as getting off her bike in her leathers. But still a very sexy leather biker babe. And just one example why I lover biker women, because they wear and love leather jeans and biker women tend to be very healthy and sexy. And look great in leather jeans and boots.

John Fugelsang On Fox & Friends

Source:Free State MD

It is true that liberalism is about the general welfare and caring about the welfare of others. And something I believe in as a Liberal. But it doesn’t take a Liberal, or a Saint to care about the welfare of others. Just a human being with a conscience. You shouldn’t have to be a Liberal to believe in those things. Just a good person who can see someone besides them self in the mirror, or in their dreams and lives. But liberalism is also about freedom of choice and economic and personal freedom. Rather than, “choice is dangerous that if you give people choice they tend to make the wrong decisions. So what we need is smart people in government making people’s choices for them.”

When you think of the words liberal and liberalism, think of liberty, liberalization, liberation, these are liberal words. People to the left of Liberals, like words like socialize, socialization, social, socialist, socialism even. These words, are well socialist. That is if you’re familiar with the English language. American, British, Canadian, whatever it might be. The Liberal, doesn’t tend to see people as stupid and big government as the savior. That big government going by the name Uncle Sam, will come and save the day by saving people from themselves. Stop them from not spending their money wisely and snatching it before they become successful and independent from big government. Or close someone’s mouth before they try to drink a soft drink, or eat a bag of potato chips, or say something that someone might see as offensive.

Liberalism, is not statist or anti-state, but pro-choice and not just on abortion, marijuana and homosexuality. But pro-choice generally speaking and about having an educated public with the freedom to make their own decisions. Rather than again having big government in the name of Uncle Sam, serving as the national parent for the country. Babysitter more like it, big enough to make sure people don’t make bad personal and economic mistakes with their own lives.

Liberals, are pro-choice, as it relates to both economic and personal issues. Not big government knowing best and deciding these issues for us based on who elects them. Which is what todays so-called ‘Modern-Liberals’, who are really Statists or Paternalists and not very liberal at all, John Fugelsang, case in point, whether it comes to economic, or personal freedom, do not seem to understand.

NBC Sports: MLB 1986-GOW-6/14-New York Yankees @ Baltimore Orioles: Full Game

Source:The Daily Journal

The Orioles started the first of three straight losing seasons in 1986. And 5-6 losing seasons from 1986-91, going through a pretty bad stretch of bad baseball as they closed out Baltimore Memorial Stadium in 1991. 1986 dealing with a bunch of injuries that season and key hitters like Eddie Murray and Fred Lynn dealing with injuries. While the Yankees were still contending, but again not making the playoffs in 1986.

With the Orioles, they were dealing with key injuries to their best players and hitters especially in Murray and Lynn. You’re talking about two of the best all around players in the game at this point. And two of the best power hitters in the game as well. And when your team isn’t that deep to begin with, losing a Lynn and Murray at the same time is really difficult. 1986, very similar as 1984, 87 and 88 for the Yankees. A very solid lineup offensively, but not enough starting pitching and enough depth in the bullpen. For the Yankees to win the AL East, which was a great division back then and still is today.

NBC Sports: MLB 1988-GOW-7/23-San Francisco Giants @ St. Louis Cardinals: Full Game

Source:The Daily Press

What a difference a year or a season makes for both the Giants and Cardinals. Who were both clearly the two best teams in the National League in 1987 and in the Cardinals case in 1988 were fighting to stay out of last place in the NL East in 1988. A division they played in until MLB realigned in 1994 and went to three divisions in both leagues. And in the Giants case, never making a real run at the NL West title at least by the All Star break and finishing eleven games behind their arch-rival Los Angeles Dodgers out of first place.

When teams when their division in MLB, especially over a 162 game schedule, unless they are very deep in talent with great chemistry and a great manager, they tend to have a lot going for them. And are able to avoid making critical mistakes during the season that costs them big games. And cost them games that might not seem big at the time, but come back to cost them in September when they’re fighting to make the playoffs or win their division. Both the Giants and Cardinals were able to avoid big mistakes and injuries in 1987. But 1988 they got hit by those things over and over and it really cost them.

ESPN: USFL 1985-Week 14-Memphis Showboats @ Portland Breakers: Short Video

Source:Real Life Journal

Playing pro football in a baseball park which is what Portland Civic Stadium was before they converted it to a soccer stadium. And Portland will need a football stadium if they are going to get another major league pro football franchise. But Memphis and Portland are markets that the USFL should’ve been looking at back then and should be looking at today. If they are serious about coming back. Something they’ve talked about since 2011-12. Because these are markets that are not currently occupied by the NFL. And they wouldn’t have to compete with the NFL for their fans. And Memphis and Portland are major markets that can both support major league football franchises. Which is what the old USFL was and what a new USFL would be. If they get an agreement with the NFL about training their players in the spring.

Jewish News One: Video: Hollywood Star Karen Black Dies at 74: An Iconic Actress

Source:The Daily Post

I wish Karen Black had another ten-years. But when you have cancer, unless it is found quickly and dealt with properly and the patient has the resources to deal with it correctly, it’s almost a death sentence. I wish she had at another ten years, because she was one of the best actress’s of her generation and era. Which was the 1960s and seventies and took big chances and made them payoff big time. Like with Easy Rider, Airport 1975, one of my favorite movies and I believe her best movie and role. And Nashville, which came out a year earlier than Airport 75.

She took risks on movies that not a lot of other actress’s would have when she didn’t have to do it and where the movies could’ve bombed on her and made it difficult for her to get big roles and big movies later on. And she would not only take the big risks, but they would pay off for her big time. And would be movies that would be remembered very well thirty or forty years later. And would do such a great job in these movies. Like in Airport 75, where she plays a head stewardess who has to take control of the plane during a mid-air collision with all three pilots no longer being able to fly the plane. And she ends flying the plane herself with the help of the runway tower and the pilot on the plane still being able to speak.

And Karen Black played these risky roles very well and will be missed. And then throw in how adorable and beautiful she was. And versatile she way with the ability to play tough characters. Like going from prostitutes with drug issues, in both Easy Rider and then later Nashville in the mid 1970s. To going to have to play a head stewardess in Airport 75 that at one point is actually flying the plane. And that is after she has to get ahold of the runway tower to let them know what is going on. Someone whose never flied a plane before and has no experience at all in doing that. Having to fly this plane over in the Mountain West and climbing mountains. And playing the terrified little adorable women who doesn’t know if she’s going to survive this experience. And yet has to pull it all together for the sake of herself and the people on the plane that she’s responsible for. And she did these role beautifully.

The BM View: Video: HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher: Ronald Reagan and the Modern GOP

Source:The FreeState 

The reasons why Ronald Reagan wouldn’t fit into todays Republican Party is because he believed in both economic and personal freedom. Reagan was a real Conservative in the Libertarian sense not religious or neoconservative sense. He didn’t believe government's job was to tell people how to live their own lives, or was skeptical about personal freedom. Which would’ve been a big problem with him with Neoconservative Republicans. 

Ron Reagan wouldn't fit in with today's GOP at least the Christian-Right and far-right in general because he believed in Separation of Church and State. He didn't believe the job of government was to act as the national father and that Uncle Sam and perhaps Father Sam if the Christian-Right were to come to power, was to make sure that all of his children were living a traditional and their American way of life. And not doing anything that the Christian-Right sees as immoral, even if innocent people aren't being hurt. 

And yes President Reagan was tough on national security and foreign policy, but he believed in those things so America wouldn’t have to police the world. Rather than being as strong as we had to be so we could police the world. And Reagan believed in the same thing that Richard Nixon did when it came to foreign policy. Which is peace through strength, which is that you are as strong as you can be so you don’t have to use all of your power that you are so strong that other countries and terrorists would be crazy to want to attack you. 

President Reagan didn't believe in nation building, or have some right-wing utopian fantasy that we could change a part of the world that still lives in the 1500s culturally and still to a certain extent legally and modernize them and force liberal democracy and individual rights on them. Reagan's national security and foreign policy was about American interests and strengths and protecting our freedom. Not forcing our way of life onto other countries that live light years behind us and still see women as servants to men. 

As well as Reagan believing in that you had to work with your allies for the simple reasons that they know important things that you don’t, but also so you don’t have to police the world. A difference between an internationalist, liberal or conservative and a neoconservative, is the internationalist bases their national security and foreign policy based on realism and the facts on the ground. Sees the world for the way it is and does their best with those realities to make it the best that they can. 

The neoconservative is the right-wing utopian. If they were left-wing they would be Socialists, but the right-wing utopian sees the world for the way they want it to be. And ignores reality or doesn't understand it and does everything they can to make sure what they see in their political fantasy comes to real life for the rest of us that are sober and not needing mental therapy because of our sanity. And decides the utopian was right all along and that this is the way it is. Reagan was a realist, not a utopian. 

Phid: Video: Mi Latina Prefeirda En Tight Jeans

Source:The Daily Press

Mui sexy y benita bebe chica! Love this women, actually I never met her and only have seen her on YouTube. I know shocking, you're probably grasping for air right now. If you are morbidly obese, perhaps you need the heimlich maneuver to stop your chocking, if someone's arms are long enough to get around your body and perform it on you and one of your steaks flies out of your. I'll confess, I've only seen this women on YouTube, but over and over again. It would feel like stalking if I wasn't just watching her on YouTube.

I use to watch a lot of TV Espanol or Spanish TV, for all of you English speakers out there reading this, that's right both of you. And a lot of times some older movie, lets say 10-15 years old would come on and it would be an action. A sexy female police detective or perhaps a sexy female private detective or perhaps bounty hunter. Maybe a girlfriend of the guy who is supposed to be the hero of the movie and she would be dressed very similar like this. Great body, very cute and beautiful wearing tight denim jeans and sexy boots. The women in this video reminds of those movies.

Thom Hartmann: What if There Really Was a Liberal Media?

Source:Free State MD

The fact is, we don’t have a liberal media, or a conservative media and certainly not a libertarian or socialist media. But what we do have is a media that is corporate owned, but by corporations, that represent all of these political factions. As well as public media and locally controlled local media, that is also publicly funded. And what corporate media does, is reports things that they believe are important. As well as what sells and if they are politically slanted, reports things they believe will hold their political side. And hurts the other sides. But since we live in a liberal democracy, a liberal society, a free society, we have a First Amendment and Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press. That allows for all of these different political factions, to have their own political news sources. That even allows someone like Thom Hartmann, on the Democratic Socialist left, to come from his vantage point and argue against corporate media. And in favor of what is publicly owned media and even state-run media. That would report the things that he and his political allies see as important. And perhaps ignore things that he believes aren’t in the public interest. And perhaps even censor reports that he disagrees with.

Days of Our Lives: Marlena Attack Kristen

Source:Real Life Journal

I don't want to make this scene seem less than it is, but I love watching these two gorgeous sexy adorable women interact with each other. Marlena attacking Kristen proves that she is not as adorable, sweet and innocent as she looks. That Big Baby can attack and is more than cable of defending herself and protecting what is hers when she believes she needs to. And Kristen playing sexy, gorgeous yes, but a tough bitch, who doesn't have many if any limits on how far she'll go to hurt people she despises like Marlena.

These two characters Kristen DiMera and Marlena Evans played by Eileen Davidson and Deidre Hall, literally hate each other. And Kristen literally using Marlena's biological son Eric and her stepson Brady to hit Marlena. By having affairs with both, which is a Hurricane Katrina size disaster waiting for both men to have a women like Kristen who is always looking for her next move and who and where to strike at against. And Marlena knows that, because she knows Kristen and that is what this fight is about. That she is not going to let Kristen use her sons.

Talking Points Memo: Joe Scarborough, FOX News. MSNBC, Exactly the Same

Source:FreeState Now

Joe Scarborough is right in the sense that MSNBC prime time and Fox News both represent political perspectives in America. They are both mouthpieces for different ideological movements in the country. Fox News is essentially the official voice for the right-wing in America and MSNBC prime time at least represents a part of the Left in America, I would argue the Far-Left at least with their prime time talk shows. Rather than both being networks for people to go to who are just looking for the news and what is going on in the country and around the world. 

CNN represents the mushy middle, people who don't know what they think and to a certain extent equal balance and they bring on people from both sides. But generally smart sane people on both sides, people who don't look like they are on medication from some shrink or need to be or perhaps even need to be committed. Unlike FNC and MSNBC that a lot of times shows you what the nut houses on the Left and Right are thinking. And bring in escaped mental patients to show you those perspectives, or people that should be committed. 

I mean if you are someone who is truly interested in news and people who just give you that and then brings in experts who are truly that and know what they are talking about and gives those perspectives based on old fashion things like facts and personal experience, things that might not be considered awesome by today's young people and hyper partisans, then CNN is still the best place for that. As well as the network news shows, as well as C-SPAN and perhaps Bloomberg. 

Thom Hartmann: Ronald Reagan, Billionaires & Privatization

Source:Free State MD

Where Thom Hartmann loses me, is when he says that making a lot of money is essentially a bad thing. That people with so much money and independence and not needing government to meet their basic financial needs, is a bad thing. And that we would be better off if we didn’t have people who were so financially independent. And you do that by taxing them so high and funding a welfare state to do that for them. And together as a country we would put all of our resources together into one pot with government deciding what we need to live well.

What I would do instead, is have an education and job training system, that empowers people to be as successful as possible. Which would be my alternative to this that allows for people to be successful as they possibly can. Even financially, but where they would still have to pay taxes based on what they consume from society. But not having them pay taxes so high just because they make a lot of money, which is different. I’ve said this before, but the problem with America is not that we have too many people who make a lot of money. But that we do not have enough. Which is why we have this income gap. And you close the income gap by encouraging more people to be successful in America.

If you want the democratic socialist superstate that Thom Hartmann and his allies advocate for as often as they can and go out of their way to say, “look at Sweden, they do things so much better than we do. We should be like them.” And have taxes so high on everyone to fund this superstate, someone still has to pay for that. You need an economy producing the tax revenue to fund the social welfare system that takes care of everyone. Instead of allowing for people to be able to take care of themselves and produce what they need for themselves. America is not Sweden. We’re not a country with a lot of land, but a very small population that is energy independent and is a net-exporter of energy. We’re huge country with a huge population. And because of that Americans need to be independent in order to live well. Which means you need an economic system that encourages economic freedom and independence.

Jack Hunter: Video: Downgrading Liberalism?

Source:The FreeState

I blame the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress’s of the early 2000s with their two-trillion in tax cuts, that weren’t paid for and their two unpaid for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and their Medicare expansion. Their constant borrow and spending that stayed with President Bush throughout his administration. And President Obama’s and his Democratic Congress in his first two years for failing to reverse those policies. Leaving in the borrow and spending to deal with the Great Recession. And of course the Great Recession, as well as the Democratic and Republican leaderships for their inability to take on their fringes when. It comes to the debt doing things they view as completely unacceptable, for the downgrade of 2011.

But I put more blame on Speaker Boehner, than I do President Obama. Because they had a long-term comprehensive deal in place in the summer of 2011 that put tax reform on the table. That the Speaker walked away from, because the Tea Party views closing tax loopholes even as tax increases that should never be passed into law. But Jack Hunter is dead wrong to blame what he views as liberalism, a warped view at that, for the American downgrade. Since it is really the Great Recession that has had a lot to do with the current debt situation. Along with two unpaid for wars that are now in the trillions of dollars and both Democrats and Republicans increasing the role of government. As they’ve both decreased the revenue sources to pay for that government expansion.

If you really want to blame the downgrade on anyone, blame it on the policies and people who put those policies in place for the downgrade. I know that sounds like a warped concept, but commonsense tends to sound warped in Washington to begin with. President Bush, comes in with a four-trillion debt and leaves with a eleven-trillion debt and the Great Recession. Which didn’t happen by accident. Again, the two unpaid for wars that are still not over. Three-trillion in tax cuts, that weren’t paid for, that didn’t have much if any positive effect in the economy. The seven-hundred-billion dollar Medicare expansion from President Bush that wasn’t paid for. Most of the spending in the Obama Administration, has been to deal with the Great Recession. Not to create new Federal programs. If you want to downgrade anything, downgrade Bush/Cheney neoconservatism.

Solitary Watch: Pat Nolan on Prison Fellowships

Source:FreeState Now

Former Nixon White House Counsel Chuck Colson, after he got out of prison in I believe the mid 1970s due to Watergate, started a prison fellowship program to prepare prison inmates for life on the outside. Both while they are still prison, but for ex-offenders who’ve already been released from prison. Something our prisons should be doing today, but aren’t for the most part. Which is why we have so many ex-offenders who return to prison.

If you operate a prison, then you’re doing it at taxpayer expense. Even if it is a private prison and with tax dollars being so precious and limited, the idea should be to get the best investment possible for those limited tax dollars that for the most part come from hardworking taxpayers. So if you’re going to have so many people in prison at the same time, how about give them incentive to improve their lives while in prison. But also so when they get out of prison, which most American inmates do. So they don’t come back to prison again.