Gadget

This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960

Friday, October 31, 2014

PBS: Video: Shields and Brooks on the Midterm Mood



Most likely and for me that means the best guess and best educated guess, Senate Republicans win back the Senate on Tuesday and perhaps add five seats to their House majority as well. I don't see a wave for 2014 where Republicans win 8-10 seats in the Senate and twenty or more in the House. But things are so bad for Democrats right now that Republicans despite their own problems with voters, do not need a wave to do well in Congress on Tuesday.

Democrats still have hope even in the Senate. They win Georgia and Kansas where they are currently ahead with Michelle Nunn over David Perdue in Georgia and Greg Orman over Republican Senator Pat Roberts has been in Congress since 1981 and maybe Democrats hold Republican gains to four or five and barely hold the Senate having to rely on a couple of new Independents to hold their majority. But they would also need to hold North Carolina and New Hampshire with Kay Hagen respectfully to pull that off. Also may need to hold Arkansas or Louisiana as well.

What may be the only victories for Democrats on Tuesday night could at the state level and not in Congress. But governor's races and legislature races where Democrats have real pickup opportunities in both areas. Pennsylvania, Florida, perhaps even Georgia, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan. If they win those states or just a few of them and not lose any big states where they currently are in power, we could see better redistricting that could favor House Democrats in the future.

Salon: Opinion: Gabriel Arana: Bill Maher's Islam Silence: Why Canceling Bill Maher's Berkley Speech is a Mistake: Freedom of Speech Protects Everyone, Not Just People You Agree With

Salon: Opinion: Bill Maher's Islam Silence: Why Canceling His Berkley Speech is a Big Mistake

I'm going to give you a prefect example of what right-wingers are talking about when they say what conservative writer Jonah Goldberg titled in his book back in I believe 2008, what he called Liberal Fascism. Even though the title Liberal Fascism is a bogus title. I mean you can't be both a Liberal and a fascist, you know it is one or the other. Just like you can't be both a Socialist and a corporatist. You can't be anti-corporate, which is what Socialists are and be a pro-corporate, which is what corporatists are.

Berkley University, which is what I call California University, has or a group of their left-wing ill-liberal students have decided that they not only do not agree with comedian, left-wing comedian, by the way Bill Maher's views on Islam, but that they do not want him speaking at their university. So the school has canceled the Maher speech there. Now here's a couple of reasons why that is a big mistake. One is practical because Berkley is a public university and part of the California State Government. So Maher's free speech rights to me at least as a non-lawyer are being violated.

But the other issue gets to a philosophical one. Banning someone or canceling on someone because you not only disagree with your views, but you are offended by them. "Don't allow that guy to speak because we disagree with him and he would be saying things that we don't want our people to hear". Fascism 101 and why right-wingers call some on the Left 'liberal fascists'. Even though again there's nothing liberal about fascism, because the main value of liberalism is free speech and the right for one to speak freely regardless of what others may think about what they have to say.

I mean you are so offended or believe what someone is saying is no wrong and just utter garbage (or something else), let the person speak and then show people how wrong they are. That is what liberal democracy and free speech are about. The right to be heard and to be able to make your case. Knowing that you are not the only person in that country with that right. And that may include people you make disagree with. Which is something that people who are on the far-left in America, people who I call leftist fascists who are addicted political correctness, do not understand.



Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Lib Dem Voice: Barry Holliday- Electoral Reform, How To: How to Reform the U.K. Parliament

Source: Lib Dem Voice: Barry Holliday- Electoral Reform, How To

Things are already changing very fast in the United Kingdom. Thanks to the Scottish independence referendum in September, devolution and federalism is coming to Britain perhaps as early as next year. At least an agreement on what a federalist United Kingdom would look like. With the unitarian socialist state in Britain collapsing, with more power headed to the states as Americans would call it and the people of Britain over their own domestic affairs.

But devolution and federalism I believe will only work as an American outsider looking in on Britain, if they reform their Parliament as well. Because at the end of the day, for England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland to be able to function properly in the United Kingdom, they will need to be well represented in Parliament in London with a functioning bicameral Parliament so not all over the power and resources are not so centralized in London with the national or federal government and in England.

For a bicameral Parliament to work in Britain the House of Lords or whatever they may call it in the future, perhaps the U.K. Council or Lordship, perhaps even Senate, needs to function like the upper chamber of Parliament that it is supposed to be. Where they actually have a say in what laws are passed in Parliament and not just be a rubber stamp for the House of Commons. Where they can conduct real oversight of the U.K. Government and have at least the same power and authority as the House of Commons. And where members of this body can be part of Prime Ministers Questions.

The way I would reform the U.K. Parliament is similar to how the U.S. Congress looks. The lower chamber the House of Representatives where Representatives represent districts inside of states. And where the upper chamber the Senators represent the whole state in America. But since Britain is a lot smaller physically and in population to America, where they would represent districts as well inside of a state. But with each state lets say in the U.K. Senate getting an equal amount of Senators. But in the House the Commons would be proportioned based on population.

England would still have more Commons than anyone else because they are by far the biggest state in the United Kingdom. But this would be a real bicameral parliament and the Lordship or Council or even Senate, each state would be represented equally. So England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland would all have the representation in parliament needed to bring back the resources that their districts and states need from London to be able to function properly.
UK Parliament: Open Lecture- Reform in The House of Lords





Salon: Opinion- Britney Cooper- "We Must Abandon Bill Cosby: A Broken Trust With Women, Black America": Why the Cosby Show Is a Great Role Model For America

Salon: Opinion- Britney Cooper- We Must Abandon Bill Cosby: A Broken Trust With Wome

In 1984 when the Cosby Show came on the air on NBC, I was eight years old in September, 1984. Actually I have more to say about this, but in the mid 1980s African-American families were stereotyped as poor, low-class, un-educated, single-parent with the mother trying to raise multiple kids on her own in some run down ghetto inner-city area. Dad completely out of the picture, perhaps in prison, or mom unaware of who the father of her kids are. The Cosby Show certainly not by itself, but they changed the way Americans looks at African-Americans and African-American families.

That alone makes the Cosby Show a success. Because even thirty-years ago not all African-American families were in that poor situation. Sure a lot of them and more than the national average as still is the case today. But the Cosby Show did what few other shows and perhaps only the Jefferson's did in the 1970s. Which was to show successful African-Americans and their kids. And that they have made it in America and that the entire community is not poor, un-educated, low-class, not knowing who their father was or dad leaving them when they were young.

The Cosby Show was sort of a stereotypical American dream. Dad is a successful doctor, mom is a successful lawyer. They live in a beautiful upper class neighborhood and house in New York City. They have great intelligent beautiful kids who are all doing well and are all successful. They were living the upper middle class dream and showing Americans another side of African-American life that probably far too many Americans perhaps of all races were not aware of.

And as funny as this show was and I don't know if there has ever been a funnier and better comedian on TV with their own sitcom than Bill Cosby, but as funny and as popular that show was, it had a very serious message. That African-Americans can make it in America and that Americans of all races can live, work, socialize with each other and not be bogged down by the fact that someone in the group or multiple people in the group has a different complexion or from a different race.

The Cosby Show was about a successful New York African-American family, but the show wasn't about race. It was about the lives of these people in this family and the show hardly focused on race at all and rarely if ever cracked racial or ethnic jokes on the show. Because that is not what the show was about, but it was about another side of the African-American story that hadn't been told up to that point. That not all African-Americans are poor and un-educated with criminal records etc. But that they are also successful and educated and doing very well in America.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Salon: Opinion: Jeffrey Taylor: Reza Aslam's Atheism Problem: "Fundamentalists Aren't the Issue, Apologists For Religions Are"

Salon: Opinion: Jeffrey Taylor: Reza Aslam's Atheism Problem: Fundamentalists Atheists Aren't the Problem, Apologists For Religions Are

Jeffrey Taylor makes a good and I would argue real Atheist argument against religion. Even though he writes for Salon, (ha ha) he didn't use his article to bash Christianity. But to say that all religions have serious issues more or less and that is a big reason why he doesn't believe in religion. Which has been my whole point and is my whole point about religion and a big reason why I'm Agnostic. That religions are too restrictive for my more liberal outlook on life as someone who wants to and lives openly. And religions tend to be followed by people who don't understand their religion and do horrible things as a result.

There are good people of all faiths and I doubt anyone serious disagrees with that. And yes there are radicals probably in all religions that give that religion a bad name. But the problem is there are enough radicals to not only give Christianity and Islam a bad name, but to do a lot of damage to society and other societies that hurt a lot of people. Including people who follow the same religion and follow that religion incorrectly and do horrible things in the name of their religion. Even though their religion does not sanction their horrible acts.

I'm not saying that religion is bad and that all religions are bad and dangerous. That is where I would probably separate from Sam Harris and I've backed him several times on this blog the last few weeks. It is people who don't understand the religion that they follow, including religious leaders that don't follow the religion they follow. And lead that inspire people to do horrible things that is the problem. And something that is going to have to be addressed if the Middle East is ever to become a stable place where people can live in peace and live good lives.

Politico Magazine: Opinion: Larry Sabato: How Goldwater Changed Campaign Forever: The Impact of the 1964 Presidential Election

Politico Magazine: Opinion: Larry Sabato: How Goldwater Changed Campaigns Forever

Not many if any Republicans including Senator Barry Goldwater expected Goldwater to win the 1964 presidential election by defeating President Lyndon Johnson and for Congressional Republicans to do anything in Congress. They were expecting big defeats as it related to both the presidential election and Congress. But that wasn't what the 1964 general elections were about for Goldwater Republicans Goldwater Conservatives.

1964 to follow up about what I wrote yesterday, was to create a choice and give Americans a choice in who to vote for. Present a Republican Party that was completely different from the GOP from the 1950s and completely different from the FDR/LBJ progressive Democratic Party. A party that was a lot less government especially federal government oriented. A party that was lot more federalist and more individualistically oriented. That wanted to turn power over to the states and people over their own affairs.

They wanted to create a new party that Conservatives and other right-wingers would feel welcome in. And take power away from the Northeastern Progressives that had been running the GOP and perhaps even make Progressives feel unwanted in the GOP. 1964 wasn't about winning for Barry Goldwater and other Republicans, but building a winning coalition that could put Republicans back in power in the future. That they simply didn't have going into the 1964 general elections.

1966 was about Republicans winning right-wing seats in Congress in House districts and Senate seats. So they could become a factor in Congress again and no longer be buried in the minority in Congress. 1968 is when Richard Nixon figured out how Republicans can win back the White House and win more seats in Congress. And 1968 is where we really see the political flip in American politics. Where Southern states look Republican and Northern states look Democratic. But it all started in 1964 and Barry Goldwater deserves a lot of credit for it.

New Republic: Opinion: John B. Judis: Democrats Hope Battleground Texas Can Turn the State Blue: How Democrats Could Win in Texas

New Republic: Opinion: John B. Judis: Democrats Hope Battleground Texas Can Turn Texas Blue

Do I think Wendy Davis will be elected Governor of Texas next Tuesday or anytime soon? Of course not because I haven't seen any polls that show that race between her and Greg Abbot is even within five points, perhaps not even ten points. Even though she did do well in the two debates against Greg Abbot and you could argue she won both debates. And she did pick up some big city paper endorsements in Texas as well. But when you are a big underdog going in, you simply can't afford to make the big campaign mistakes that she has, including some bad commercials.

2014 won't be the year for Texas Democrats, but 2018, 2020 we may see that state move in a different direction. And the racial and ethnic trends in that state will be a big factor. With the growing Latino population in that state and the shrinking Caucasian population as well. But that only matters if people vote and right now Republican voters in Texas are primarily Caucasian, but they are very reliable voters. Latinos aren't right now and only vote big in presidential elections.

So a growing Latino population in Texas won't be enough to make that state competitive in Texas for Democrats. If they have this idea that they'll just wait until Texas looks like California, especially Los Angeles and San Francisco, or look like Seattle, or Chicago, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington politically, culturally, racially and ethnically, Texas will remain red indefinitely. Because one thing that Texans of all backgrounds prides themselves on is that they are like those big blue cities and blue states.

For Texas Democrats to succeed, they have to succeed in Texas and win Texas voters. Instead of campaigning there like they are campaigning in Los Angeles, or San Francisco or New England. They have to win voters in Texas and when the other party outnumbers you, you have to win over voters who tend to vote Republican. But perhaps aren't as far to the right or as partisan as others Republicans and the leadership and looking for an alternative to the Republican Party in Texas.

Going into the 2014 Texas governors race, I thought Wendy Davis at least on paper before all of the campaign mistakes was that type of Democrat. That if she didn't win the election, she would at least make it a race and perhaps start moving the state in a Democratic direction. That hasn't happened because she hasn't run a very good campaign. But on paper she looks very Texan politically, but in a Democratic sense.

Liberal on social issues, pro-gun, pro-choice and not just as it relates to abortion, but other social issues as well, including as it relates to homosexuality. Fiscally responsible, big believer in education and opportunity so more Texans can succeed and not be dependent on public assistance. She looks like a New Democrat in the political and ideological sense, instead of someone from the Progressive Caucus or Green Party trying to convince Texans that they are wrong politically and need to be more progressive or even socialist on a whole wide range of issues.

That is how Texas Democrats can win in Texas in the future, but run effective campaigns without the big errors of the Wendy Davis campaign. Don't treat Texas like California or New England politically, but run in Texas as if you are in Texas speaking to Texan voters who aren't nearly as far to the Left as the big blue states. With a mainstream center-left message built around education and opportunity for all, with big government off everyone's back, where everyone can succeed. That would be a winning message for Texas Democrats in the future and Latinos could help them win with that.

Monday, October 27, 2014

National Journal: Opinion: Norm Ornstein: What If Independents Keep Senate Majority Status in Flux?

National Journal: Opinion: Norm Ornstein: What If Independents Keep Senate Majority In Flux?

What if, what if, what if, what question is more fun to ask and even ask yourself than what if? But the reason why it is such a fun question to ask, is because it gives people that chance to imagine and throw out countless hypotheticals and imagine all sorts of interesting things. But to speak about Norm Ornstein's what if, he may be on to something right now because of how partisan and divided America is politically right now. With an unpopular President, but an unpopular Republican opposition that Americans aren't crazy about having complete control of Congress, both the House and Senate.

This is where the centrists, or as I prefer the more independently minded Senators and Senate candidates come into play. Because let's say we do have a 50-50 Senate in the next Congress with Democrats still in control of the Senate because of Vice President Joe Biden, or a 51-49 Senate in the next Congress that goes either way, without either party having enough of a partisan advantage to run the chamber by themselves, that is where the Independents come into play. Especially if they don't caucus with either party, or are not in lockstep with the political or governing agenda that their leadership wants to push.

In a divided Senate like that, that is where the Independents have the power, Assuming the Leader and Minority Leader are actually interested in governing and passing legislation in that Congress. And not simply looking for the next partisan advantage that will give them a clear majority in the next Congress. When the leadership's in both parties aren't interested in governing and simply looking for partisan advantage, as we've seen a lot in the Congress from both parties in both chambers, Independents do not mean a hell of a lot.

Whoever the next Senate Leader and Minority Leader is, they will still set the tone as far as what that Senate can pass in the next Congress. And if you are like me, you are looking for new leadership at the top in both parties without Harry Reid Mitch McConnell leading their respective caucus's. And hopefully new blood will come in and decide to work with the other party. Because whoever will holds the next Senate majority, it will be paper-thin, perhaps 52-48 at best for one side. And if they decide to govern, the Independents will come into power and a lot legislation could get passed.

Sam Harris: Interview With Cenk Uygur From The Young Turks

Sam Harris: Blog: Young Turks Interview

What I respect about Sam Harris's atheism is that he's the real thing. He doesn't say Christianity is horrible and should be put down, especially when radical fundamentalists are in the news doing horrible things. But then defends the right of fundamentalists Muslims when they do and say horrible things about people they do not like and defend their right to free speech and Freedom of Religion. Even when these leftist political correctness radicals probably are against Freedom of Religion.

My example of that would be Salon and their coverage of now famous Real Time With Bill Maher show  that Sam Harris and Ben Affleck were on. When Ben Affleck was defending political correctness when it comes to criticism of Muslims, but have no problem attacking Christians when they do and say things that probably most Americans not just disagree with, but even find disgusting. Salon is garbage by the way and that is putting it nicely. They are not much more than a propaganda operation for the far-left in America.

If you a real Liberal and even a real Atheist, you are not going to defend the right of free speech for people you agree with as a Liberal, while trying to shut up the opposition. As we see with leftist fascists on campus that try to block right-wingers from speaking at their schools. And if you are a real Atheist, you are not going to bash one religion and say that it is evil or whatever, while you are saying another religion is perfectly normal and legitimate. One of the points of being an Atheist is that you don't believe in religion and are against religion period. Which I believe is two of the points that Sam Harris is making.

Eagle Forum: Blog: Phyllis Schlafly: A Choice Not An Echo Revisited

Eagle Forum: Blog: Phyllis Schlafly: A Choice Not An Echo Revisited

If you want to know why Tea Party Republicans, the non-Conservative Libertarians in that movement, have a tendency to sound like Ron Paul Libertarians on economic and fiscal policy and even to a certain extent of foreign policy as well, but sound like Rick Santorum and other leaders on the Religious-Right on social issues, Phyllis Schlafly and her book A Choice Not An Echo is a big part of that. This movement that became huge in the GOP by the late 1970s combined economic conservatism with religious conservatism as it came to social issues.

I think to understand Phyllis Schlafly and her let's say Traditional Values Coalition, you have to first understand the Republican Party of the 1950s up until lets say 1963 or so. Back then there were such things as Progressive Republicans. The Nelson Rockefeller's and Dwight Eisenhower's of the GOP. Not progressive in today's sense of always trying to expand the size of government and creating new government services for people. But that "government if limited can play a constructive role in society, even in the economy, just as long as individual freedom wasn't subtracted as a result".

The Democratic Party and the FDR New Deal Progressives ran the U.S. Government all by themselves with a little opposition from Southern right-wing Democrats from 1933 to 1947 when Republicans finally won back both chambers of Congress. Which they lost again in 1948 as Harry Truman was elected President. Dwight Eisenhower and his more progressive wing and again progressive in the classical sense, figured out how to counter Progressive Democrats and for Republicans to govern again.

The Eisenhower Progressives message was not to be another social democratic party just like the Democrats at the time. Or be an the anti-government, isolationist more conservative libertarian GOP of the 1940s. But find a governing middle and say yes, "we believe that America should have a safety net for people who truly need it. But we don't want a government so big that that individual freedom and initiative is subtracted. And that people who can physically and mentally work, should work and that government can help people, but shouldn't try to take care of them".

That was the point of the Phyllis Schlafly book A Choice Not An Echo. They saw the Eisenhower/Rockefeller wing of the GOP as Democratic or Progressive light and that might be putting it nicely. That the Republican Party needed to move in a direction that was completely the opposite of where the Democratic Leadership was back in the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s. And give Americans a real choice as they saw it in who to vote for. I believe the Phyllis Schlafly movement that eventually produced the Religious-Right and today's Neoconservatives was the Tea Party of the 20th Century.

Phyllis Schlafly created a movement that went against the Progressive Era, the New Deal, the Eisenhower/Rockerfeller Progressive Republicanism of the 1950s, the Great Society of the 1960s, the women's movement, gay libertarian, counter culture, culture revolution, the civil rights movement even. And wanted to take America back to where it was pre-Great Depression even. And take America back to what they would call Traditional America and live under their traditional values.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Swiss Habs-NHL Network: NHL 1979-Stanley Cup Finals-Game 5: New York Rangers @ Montreal Canadians: Full Game

Source: Swiss Habs-NHL Network: NHL 1979-Stanley Cup Finals Game 5- Montreal Canadians @ New York Rangers

The Montreal Canadians accomplishing something in 1979 which may sound impossible today, which was to win their fourth straight Stanley Cup. Winning two in a row is a huge deal now and has been going back to the Pittsburgh Penguins of the early 1990s, 1991 and 1992 when they won back- --to-back cups. The Detroit Red Wings did in the late 1990s in 97 and 98, but no one else had done it since. Because of expansion and free agency with the parity, it is very hard to dominate the NHL for more than one season now.

The Canadians not only won four straight from 1976-79, but five overall in the 1970s. The team of that decade, which is what the Edmonton Oilers were in the NHL in the 1980s. And with the way the NHL is set up today, no other team has dominated an entire decade and been the team of the decade in the NHL since. Because there's so much parity and so much traveling and so many other things that players have to go through to get through a long 82 game NHL season.

CBS: The Carol Burnet Show- Dinner and a Movie: Captain Cliche Strikes Again



Alan Alda playing Captain Cliche on The Carol Burnett Show. The man who probably watches too much TV and too many movies and unable to think for himself. Doesn't sound that unfamiliar to the faddists who follow every trend just to be cool or awesome. We especially see that with technology today where so many Americans feel the need and must have the latest technology, computer, smart phones etc. Because they won't want to be the only one that doesn't have the latest phone or whatever. And be the only one with Iphone 5 instead of 6 or whatever.

I called Alan Alda Captain Cliche in this scene, but Cookie Cutter would've worked to. Someone not able to think for them self especially when they are talking to people they like and want to like them. So what they do to compensate is use material that they've heard from other sources. There's cookie cutter humor that I'm not a fan of that we see today with so many sitcoms and movies using other people's material and lines because it worked and sound cool there, so they use that with their project as well.

But if you know the real Alan Alda as opposed to this dope he played in this sketch, which he did very well, not that it takes a lot of effort to play a dope, but you know that Alda is anything, but cookie cutter or cliche when it came to his own humor. And that he is very spontaneous and off the cuff, flip and real quick with his wit. As we saw with MASH where he had a big role in the material that was used and as we've seen throughout his carer and with his personal appearances.

Prem Panicker: Video: NBC's The West Wing: Why is Liberal a Bad Word?



Matthew Santos played by Jimmy Smits, a great actor, doing a solid job of defending liberalism against Arnold Vinick played by the great actor and comedian Alan Alda. This of course was part of the last season of The West Wing with a lot of focus on who was going to be next President after Jeb Bartlett played by the great Martin Sheen. And the Democratic nominee was Representative Matthew Santos played again by Jimmy Smits and the Republican nominee was Senator Arnold Vinick played by Alan Alda.

I wouldn't consider Matt Santos to be the liberal in this election, but the candidate who was furthest left at least amongst by major party presidential candidates on this show. He advocated for eliminating school tenure for public school teachers, which is something I support as a Liberal. Not the point of this post, but then he advocates for nationalizing public education in America and putting the Federal Government in charge of schools in America. That was from the early days of this campaign, which was on season 6.

No real Liberal would advocate for nationalizing public schools in this country. I'm not sure I can come up with a more anti-liberal position than nationalizing the school system. I mean talk about top-down over-bureaucratic government agencies, nationalize the school system where Washington tells Seattle, San Francisco, Dallas and Atlanta and everyone else in the country how to educate their kids and you'll see exactly what I mean. With a school system worth trillions of dollars and a huge part of the American economy.

I said Matt Santos did a solid job of defending liberalism. And I meant that and I just laid out where this fictional character came up short as a Liberal and looks more like a Socialist. But where he did a good job was talking about expanding rights and freedom in this country, which is the main point of liberalism and the main reason for being a Liberal. Not expanding governmental power, but expanding the power of individuals over their own lives. And he gave great examples including ending slavery, women's right to vote, Medicare and Social Security.

Tony Baretta: The Driver 1978- A Movie About The Getaway Driver & the Detective Who Has to Catch Him


Source: Tony Baretta- Ryan O'Neal & Bruce Dern-
Source: Tony Baretta: The Driver 1978 Trailer

The Driver is a great action/drama thriller with Ryan O'Neal, Bruce Dern and many others. About a hotshot getaway driver played by Ryan O'Neal who drives for bank robbers and other robbers and gets them out of the clear and gets paid for that. Apparently The Driver has race car experience, but that is never made real clear in the movie. The Driver has never been caught and this big shot police detective or sergeant and his crew gets assigned to track The Driver down and catch him.

One thing I love about this movie is the realness in it as it relates to life in general. There are no Saints or Devils in it. The Driver the supposed bad guy, is not evil, but certainly not the good guy in the movie. He drives for robbers, but doesn't enjoy hurting people or hurting innocent people. He just takes care of himself and does his job to survive. Not because he wants to hurt people. The lead cop in the movie played by Bruce Dern, is suppose to be the good guy. But lets his ego into his job and uses controversial and extra-legal tactics to try to catch The Driver.

Like a set up a operation involving known robbers to get The Driver to drive for them on the job. To rob a bank that the police know is going down ahead of time and then when the job is done, the police will move in and catch everyone. But release the robbers that were in on the operation because they helped the police out. One major flaw in that plan. The head bad guy in that operation decides to screw the detective and instead of taking the money to the place that he and the detective agreed on, they took the money to a different location so they can get away.

If you like fast paced, high action and dramatic movies that never slow down and are always moving, that are also realistic, The Driver is a great movie. Probably the only Ryan O'Neal movie that I like and one of several Bruce Dern movies that I do like. Because it is not really bad guys versus the good guys, but guys on both sides that have jobs to do and go about those jobs the best that they can. With no one really winning at the end, which you see the movie for yourself to find that out.

Striker 1909: Jeff Bridges With the Final Speech From The Contender



Great speech from The Contender by Jeff Bridges who played the President in this movie. Not a very realistic scene as far as how they put the U.S. House chamber together for this joint session of Congress when the House and Senate come together to hear the President speak. With the Speaker of the House and the President or Pro Tempore sitting in big chairs just above the President as the President is speaking.

But still a good speech from the President saying that he won't let a very partisan faction from the opposition in the House of Representatives derail his Vice Presidential nominee, Senator Lane Evans who just happens to be one of their Congressional colleagues, be defeated because of what may or may not happened in Senator Evans private life before coming to Congress. That the President wasn't going to put up with this obstruction and he was going to fight for his nominee.

This was a very important scene and movie for this if only reason. Because it was about the Right to Privacy and that even public officials and even members of Congress and even members of Congress who appointed to the second highest office in the country, the Vice Presidency and it raised  two very important questions. Do public officials and even members of Congress and even members of Congress who are appointed to high office have a Right to Privacy. And should our public officials be judged based on how they live their private lives or not.


Saturday, October 25, 2014

Politico Magazine: Opinion- Richard Norton Smith- Nelson Rockefeller's Last Stand

Source: Politico- Governor Nelson Rockefeller, R, NY-
Source: Politico Magazine: Opinion- Richard Norton Smith- Nelson Rockefeller's Last Stand

To understand Nelson Rockefeller's politics, you have to first understand the politics of the Republican Party up until 1966-67 or so. When the Republican Party officially moved into a different direction politically and became the official right-wing party in America. That had already started in 1964 with Barry Goldwater's nomination for president, but the 1966 mid-terms is where it started paying off for the GOP in Congress and with governorships around the country.

See the Republican Party that Nelson fit into, was the GOP of the 1950s with Dwight Eisenhower. Nelson Rockefeller was no Liberal at least he wouldn't be today. He certainly wasn't a Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist or Social Democrat either of course. But he also wasn't a Rand Paul Tea Party Conservative Libertarian of today, or a Barry Goldwater Conservative Libertarian. If there is such a thing even sixty-years ago, Nelson Rockefeller would've been a Progressive Republican. And I mean that in the classical sense.

A classical Progressive in the sense of someone who believes in hard work, education and opportunity for all. A safety net for people who fall though the cracks of the private enterprise system. Someone who believed in rule of law and a tough internationalist foreign policy and national security. But someone who also believed in civil rights and equal rights for everyone. Nelson was to the Left of Franklin Roosevelt on social issues especially civil rights. But not as far to the Left of Franklin on economic policy and who wanted to create the next chapter of the New Deal.

Nelson wanted a safety net for people who truly needed it. Not a welfare state to manage people's lives for them. And for everyone who was physically and mentally able, which is most of the country, he believed those people should get a good education, work hard and be productive. And then get to enjoy the rewards of their production. That if you were on public assistance because you couldn't find a good job or not qualified to get a good job, that government could help you finish your education so you can become independent.

The Eisenhower/Rockefeller Progressives were no longer running the Republican Party by 1964. When President Eisenhower left office in 1961, Republicans were looking for a new direction and leadership. Senator Barry Goldwater filled that vacuum for them in 1964 and that is the direction they stuck with until President Ronald Reagan left office in 1989. And because of this there was no longer a base of support for Progressives like Nelson Rockefeller to step up and lead the GOP in that direction. Because they were now outnumbered by Conservatives.
The History Channel: Nelson Rockefeller Biography


What About Larry: Video: Bravo's Inside The Actors Studio: Kevin Spacey's Impressions: Smart Answers to Stupid Questions


This post was originally posted at FRS Citizen Journal on Blogger

People have asked me what's my style of humor, my sense of humor and how I come up with lines and so-forth. I'm not saying I'm a professional comedian or anything (at least I haven't gotten paid for being funny, yet) . But I have been able to make people laugh hysterically, intentionally and unintentionally in the past. And I've told them simply my sense of humor is off the cuff, I say what's on my mind when I'm thinking it. Rather than "that sounds funny and use it two weeks later". To me humor has to be fast and relevant. Example of a bad joke. Cracking jokes about Priests at a football game, is probably not a smart play.

First of all you're likely to offend a lot of people there and not seem funny, but insulting. Which to me are two different things, but you're going to get strange looks (or end up wearing someone else's lunch) like making a Catholic joke at a football game when some half-naked moron runs on to the field during the game and people will look at you like "what does a drunk Priest in Church have to do with the guy who ran on the field". You're humor needs to be relevant and needs to make sense. And what I do is, I see myself as an analyst of life, we all are and I make judgements and comment on things that I see whatever is that interests me. If you watch the sitcom MASH or Seinfeld, that's exactly what they do. Here's the situation, what you think about it and they would look for the funny side of it.

Alan Alda who played Hawkeye Pierce, my favorite sitcom character of all time. If not in TV in general would be performing surgery and cracking jokes as he's doing it while saving the patients life. One to relax the people he was working with in that stressful environment, but also to relax himself. "This is the situation and this is what's funny about it was their approach to comedy". To give you a personal example, I use to work in customer service, have about twelve years experience of that. And we were surrounded by people, customers mostly for whatever reason, they were nervous or whatever. But would go brain dead when they would approach you and ask the dumbest questions possible.

No joke when I worked at a movie theater, we had to wear these loud maroon colored red polo shirts. With the name of the movie theater on them, with these corny name tags on them. I'm Joe or Sally or whatever, with your name on them obviously, (what was the first clue). We just got a lot of customers that were either, drunk, high or both or perhaps just had brain surgery, but their doctor actually removed their brain by accident.

Smart answers to dumb questions

Customers would constantly walk up to me and ask, do I work here. And seriously this is no joke, I would always reply with a smart ass answer and I never got in trouble for it. And I would say no, I stole this shirt or I'm a member of the theater fan club.

"Do you sell popcorn?" No we are the only movie theater in America that doesn't sell popcorn. We sell Chinese food instead, but sorry no chopsticks you have to eat with your hands.

Again true story, one day I'm in a ticket booth, selling tickets, naturally. (If you would guessed I was selling sporting equipment, you would be wrong). And someone asked, me where do you buy tickets, I told them three blocks down the street at the gas station, but if you want your oil changed or need gas, you have to buy it here.

Another person asked what size is the small popcorn. I said small we aren't trying to fool you with false advertising even though that would be very tempting because of the quality of our customers. "Well what does it look like"? It looks small. Again no joke someone asked how much are free refills, I told them five bucks, but we only take travelers checks. Again this is the situation in front of me and that's what I was thinking right at that moment.

That's the style of humor that you get from Kevin Spacey the actor/director/writer, but I would throw in comedian as well. The guy could've been a full-time professional comedian if he wanted to. Watch the movies Swimming with The Sharks and Hurley Burley, The Big Kahuna and you'll see what I mean. I would add Chris Walken and Tom Hanks to that list because their humor is so spontaneous, off the top of their heads, they don't need scripts or writers. They do that for themselves which is what all great comedians do and is a style of humor I've patterned mine behind.




Classic Canada Sports: NHL Expansion Documentary: Why The World Hockey Association Was Successful


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on Blogger

The National Hockey League up until the late 1960s were a six team league, just six franchises in the whole league representing two huge countries physically Canada and America. Spanning from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans, until they expanded in the late 1960s in major markets like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, St. Louis, Denver, Los Angeles, Washington in the mid 1970s. The National Hockey League spent its first fifty- years or so trying to prove to North America, especially America that they were even a major sports league, they've passed that test since, but they had a hard time expanding anywhere.

The NHL was reluctant to expand which is good reasons for the World Hockey Association. Not sure why they called it that because they were only in two countries, but it's good for major league hockey in North America that they came into business in the early 1970s. Because they proved in just seven seasons that major league hockey could work in both Canada and America and went into markets like Hartford, Cleveland, Quebec, Winnipeg, Denver, Edmonton and others. Giving pro hockey players more of a choice in where they could play in what league and for what team. 

The WHA proved that major league hockey could work in North America that the NHL was trapping it's player in having to play for one team even after their contract expired. And that the NHL wasn't doing a very good job in attracting as many fans as they could. The WHA was able to do as well as they did in that brief seven-year window that they had because they were able to attract talent that should've been in the NHL. But that the NHL let slide away from them because again they were trying to keep them with one club not letting see for themselves what else was out there. 

But also players that should've been in the NHL, but there just wasn't enough room for them because again up until the late 1960s again the NHL only had six clubs. Which meant great players like forwards Bobby Hull, Gordie Howe, Wayne Gretsky who I guess the NHL thought was too small. But all Wayne Gretsky did was show the world that he might be the best hockey player who ever played. But you could also make a case for Gordie Howe as far as who's the greatest all around hockey player of all-time, but thats a different debate. 

And without the WHA maybe the NHL doesn't have thirty clubs today, because maybe they wouldn't of taken chances on markets like Nashville, Tampa, Miami, Raleigh, Denver, San Jose etc. And maybe they are still a small league just trying to survive like the Major Indoor Soccer League or something. The WHA was a success because a lot of their clubs were able to become part of the NHL. Like the Winnipeg Jets, Edmonton Oilers and others. And proved that major league hockey can succeed in North America. And without the WHA, the NHL is probably not as successful as it is today.


Scott Rathburn-NHL Network: NHL 1981- 1981 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Source: Scott Rathburn-
Source: Scott Rathburn-NHL Network: NHL 1981-Stanley Cup Playoffs

I wish NHL Network, ESPN Classic and perhaps ESPN in general did more NHL history and showed more not just NHL classic games and not just in the offseason, but in the regular season, than they do now. Because even though I'm clearly not a hockey expert and it is at best my third or fourth sport that I follow and I'm not nearly the sports fan that I was as a kid, hockey is still pretty interesting to me and I would like to learn more about the history of the NHL. And seeing films and documentaries and old games allows for fans to do that.

Again no NHL or hockey expert here, but I do know that 1981 was the second of four straight Stanley Cups for the Long Island, soon to be Brooklyn Islanders as I call them. The Islanders of the early 1980s were very similar to the Edmonton Oilers of the mid and late 1980s. They had a lot of firepower led by Mike Bossy and many others. Great goaltending with Billy Smith and a very good defense in front of Smith with a great head coach in Al Arbor.

The NHL of the early 1980s was in a transitional period. With the Montreal Canadians having dominated the NHL in the 1970s, winning like four Stanley Cups. The power in the NHL was headed South to America with the Islanders and even West in Canada with the Oilers and Calgary Flames. Which was good for NHL fans because you didn't know who was going to win the cup every year. Because you had at least three very strong Canadian teams and several strong American teams every year.

Zhukaiww: Video: The Contender 2000 Trailer: A Movie About the Right of Privacy For Public Officials


This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState 1975 on Blogger

The Contender movie from 2000 came about almost three years after the Monica Lewinski scandal broke and two years after President Clinton was impeached in the House on a party-line vote. President Clinton was actually mentioned in this movie, and about two years after the Clinton impeachment trial in the Senate I believe The Contender at least to some degree was influenced by the Lewinski scandal and the point that President Clinton was making.

President Clinton's point being that his Private Life is just that and that even public officials elected officials president's even have a Right to Privacy even as it relates to their sex life. And that if adultery is involved which it is in both cases that its between the adulterer, their family and the person the affair was with. Not 265-300M Americans as was the case back then and especially an opposition party thats looking to embarrass the President or Vice President.

Or even bring the top leaders down, which was the case with the Lewinski scandal as well as in this movie. And it has Jeff Bridges who's personally one of my favorite actors, especially for his great sense of humor. But he can also act, playing a President who's wrapping up his presidency and looking to build his legacy. His Vice President just died in office and he has to fill that vacancy and basically has a choice between a popular Democratic Governor of Virginia GOV. Jack Hathaway played by a great character actor Bill Peterson. Famous for his role in CBS CSI. And a junior Senator from Ohio played by a very good actress Joan Allen. And these are the top two contenders for the Vice Presidency.

The President has to nominate a new Vice President and appoint them to both chambers of Congress because the House has an Advise and Consent role in nominating a new Vice President. And then you throw in the cast in the movie Jeff Bridges as the President, Sam Elliot as WH Chief of Staff, Saul Rubinek as WH Press Secretary, Joan Allen as Sen. Lane Evans nominee for Vice President. Gary Oldman as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Bill Peterson as GOV. Jack Hathaway who wants to run for president and become vice president to help him with that.

Christian Slater who plays a freshmen Representative from Delaware who doesn't like Sen. Evans because she used to be a Republican. And wants GOV. Hathaway to be Vice President. And actually works with the Chairman who presides over the Vice Presidential confirmation hearings for the House. To make sure that Sen. Evans does not get confirmed because the House Republicans of course see Sen. Evans as too liberal. So you have all these little side stories and motivations and everyone involved has stake in the game so to speak.

Joan Allen plays the first female nominee for Vice President in American history who has a wild history from college. And seen as someone who slept around and even had an affair with one of her friend's husband played by Robin Thomas. Who she later marries and starts a family with. Sen. Evans is also the daughter of of the former Governor of Ohio who's a Republican, but supports his daughter's nomination for Vice President. And the House Republicans and their special interest allies try to make the most of Sen. Evans private life to bring her down. So she doesn't become Vice President of the United States one step away from the Presidency, great movie.


Wednesday, October 22, 2014

The New Republic: Opinion: Nathan Lean: Ben Affleck-Bill Maher Islam Debate: "There is no Muslim World": Differentiating Between Islam and Jihadism

The New Republic: Opinion: Nathan Lean: Bill Maher-Ben Affleck Islam Debate: There's No Muslim World

Where I believe Nathan Lean and I agree is that there's a difference between jihadism and Islam. Islam is a religion and most Muslims tend to be peaceful. I think that is obvious because if Muslim was a religion of violence, the jihadist movement would be a hell of a lot bigger today than it is. It is jihadism where the terrorism is coming from when we are talking about North Africa and the Middle East. Jihadism similar to the Religious-Right in America, is a warped interpretation of what Islam is and supposed to be about. And that their beliefs are so strong, that they'll use violence to promote them.

I compare jihadism with the Religious-Right and when I'm talking about the Religious-Right, the militant Religious-Right. People who I don't even really consider to be real Christians in the sense because of how violent they are. And willing to blow up abortion clinics even if innocent people are murdered to prevent abortions from happening. And what they would call to save the lives of innocent babies. Well Jihadist's even though technically they are Muslims, are not acting in their faith when they blow up airports and shoot innocent people in crowded public spaces.

One thing that Islam and Christianity have in common, is that they have some serious radicals that give their religion a really bad name. And do horrible things and kill innocent people in the name of their religion, even though what they are doing goes against what their religion is about and what it preaches. I think that is where Bill Maher and Sam Harris and I would disagree. Bill Maher at least, perhaps not Sam Harris. Even though I've been with both of them when criticizing the lets say political correct Left about them unwilling to criticize Jihadist's. But more then happy to attack the Religious-Right.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Lain Lucey: Same Time Next Year 1978 With Alan Alda & Ellen Burstyn- The Ultimate Weekend Getaway From Reality




Source: Lain Lucey-
Source: Lain Lucey: Same Time Next Year 1978 With Alan Alda & Ellen Burstyn

Same Time Next Year might be the best romantic comedy of all-time. And if it isn’t, it might be the smartest romantic comedy of all-time and definitely in the top one percent of both categories. Because I don’t believe it was trying to be funny, but the movie was just so natural. With the two main characters George and Dorris played by Alan Alda and Ellen Burstyn, who were just so real with both having noticeable flaws that came out often especially George. And the two both looking for something different in their relationships.
The only part of the movie I do not get is the opening scene. Why would two happily married people be out in the country by themselves having dinner by themselves? What were they doing there all alone when they are both happily married with kids. But that is how the movie and this love affair that is only one weekend a year, but for the next twenty-six years starts. And this would actually be a movie that should’ve had a second chapter. To see how this couple made out because both of their spouses die in the movie.
What I also love about this movie is when George and Helen weren’t making love in the movie, the rest of the movie was conversational between this couple. And you get to learn so much about them. About how vulnerable and lacking in self-confidence George was. And how unsure he was and easy to blame himself about things and how bad of a liar he was. To Helen wanting a stronger man in his life stronger than the man here husband was. These are two very good caring people, but two real people looking for something different in their lives.


The Wolf 914: Video: Goodfellas 1990: Joe Pesci and Ray Liotta: You Think I'm Funny?



Yes Joe, we think you are funny and you’ve been one of the funniest people in Hollywood for a very long time because you are a natural comedian who doesn’t need funny lines to be funny. Because of what you bring to them and how you deliver them. My favorite types of movies are movies that aren’t supposed to be full-time comedies that do not set out to be hysterical, but just are because of the people in them and the characters they play. Breaking Bad on AMC is a perfect example of that and so is Goodfellas.
Joe Pesci’s character in this movie is a serious bad ass. Whose murdered probably hundreds of people, sort of like Sammy Gravanao from the Gambino Crime Family in New York. But he’s a very funny man who knows how to have a good time and a great story-teller. As you see in this scene, but Goodfellas is not supposed to be a comedy. But a real life story about people who are really bad, but who are also very funny characters.
Joe Pesci’s character Tommy in this movie is a big shot Italian mobster in New York City. Not a capo meaning captain in Italian, but a made guy with his own crew and people under him. Whose very successful with his cover business’s. Business’s that are legitimate technically, but are really there to cover illegal activity like a restaurant. Or a store and he’s a very good story-teller and Henry played by Ray Liotta in this movie mentions that to him. And Tommy jokingly takes that as Henry is insulting him and scares the hell out of Henry.
Tommy & Henry
Tommy & Henry

Monday, October 20, 2014

Johnny Carson-NBC's The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Jimmy Stewart Delightfully Funny in 1989



I can't do a Jimmy Stewart impression. I wish I could, because he's one of my favorite funny actors of all-time. Similar to Cary Grant or Robert De Niro of today. The best I can do with Stewart, is use what are today and have been for a while all of these cheesy expressions and words that he used all the time in his movies. Sounding like a small town country boy going to a big city for the first time in his life and saying things like gee wiz, dog gonnit, cheesy stuff like that. But sounds hysterical when it is in a movie that has a lot of cussing in it, but the movie is edited and replaced with words like this.

But Johnny Carson was right when he said that he could play straight man to Jimmy's comedian and wiseass who is never serious. Johnny could feed him all of the material that Jimmy would need to comment on and Jimmy without a script could do standup off the top of his head without preparation and sound hysterical. As we saw in this video with Johnny asking Jimmy basic questions about what is going on in his life and Jimmy playing comedian in response. Like saying his New Years resolution was to talk faster. One reason he is famous is for talking slow.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is one of my favorite movies of all-time. And even though I don't think it was supposed to be, it is also one of the funniest movies of all-time. The humor you see from Jeff Smith in the movie played by Jimmy Stewart is very similar to the real life Stewart. Observational, off the cuff, what are you thinking, no time to prepare, instant humorous analysis of what you are seeing. Which is Jimmy Stewart and what you see in this video on Carson.


Ken Pruitt: Video: Wall Street 1987: Gordon Gecko's Greed is Good Full Speech



Best part of the first Wall Street movie at least and one of my favorite movies of all-time. And whatever you think of the Gordon Gecko character, or even what you think of Michael Douglas who played him, Douglas did a great job. And what made this speech so great was how accurate and real it was. Here are these people trying to make Gordon Gecko look like this greedy bastard when if anything they are just like Gecko. 

Except that Gecko is better and knows what companies are worth buying and how much he should spend on them and how to reform them. So he can make a profit off of them and of course there was some insider-trading involved here. But the facts and points of the Gecko speech are still the same that greed is good and he explains why. That without greed people wouldn’t want things for themselves. 
Without greed people wouldn’t work as hard so they could have things for themselves. So they could be as successful as possible and enjoy the fruits of their labor. And enjoy being successful, that we are all greedy, it’s just that some people are better at it than others. And people are all greedy at least to a certain extent, that it's just a matter of degree. It's not that we aren't greedy, but what level of greed is tolerable in a free society that is really the question.


CBS News: Sunday Morning- Take Our Poll- Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame: The Case For Inducting Pete Rose in the MLB Hall of Fame

CBS News: Take Our Poll: Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame

The only reason why Pete Rose is not in the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame and he would've gone in I believe 1992 which I believe would've been is first year of eligibility, but the only reason he's not there has to do with his gambling on Major League Baseball games. Which he gambled on even as manager of the Cincinnati Reds and even betted on Reds games. Pete being out of the Hall of Fame has nothing to do with his playing career and nothing to do with his playing career is keeping him out of the Hall of Fame.

I could understand banning Pete from ever being a MLB manager, coach or executive for life. Because betting on your own team's games is a pretty bad offense. Especially if you are betting that they lose and have a say in the outcome of their games. But to keep him out of the Hall of Fame in general, when he's arguably the best all around player of his era and generation and we are talking about a career that covers twenty-four seasons from 1963-86, makes no sense from a Hall of Fame perspective.

Keeping Pete out of the Hall of Fame also does more damage to Reds fans and the Cincinnati Reds organization that Pete. Because of all the respect and luster that comes from not just seeing one of your own players in the Hall of Fame, but having that person in the Hall of Fame. "That player was not just a great player, but he played for us and we won a lot of games with him and he's in the Hall of Fame as one of us". Things that the Reds organization and the Reds fans can't say right now because they are denied of seeing Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame.

We are not talking about whether Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame as a manager or even as a human being. He would never make it to the Hall of Fame based on that criteria. We are talking about Pete Rose the player and based on his playing career and because of the facts that he's the best player who's been retired for at least five years from playing, not in the Hall of Fame. And of course what he did as a player would've put him in the Hall of Fame over twenty-years ago. Pete Rose should definitely be in the Hall of Fame. Just don't allow him to manage or be an executive.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

History Comes to LIfe: Video: Nelson Rockefeller Announces For President 1968

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on Blogger, September, 2011

If Nelson Rockefeller was alive today and still involved in public service in some way, whether it was in public office or working for non-profits, which he did both in his very long and distinguished career in public service. What party would he be affiliated with? I think it's clear that maybe outside of the Northeast and of course he was from New York I believe GOV. Rockefeller would've had a very hard time getting elected as a Republican today. Especially in a Republican Party thats now dominated by the Christian Right and to some extent Neoconservatives.

But neoconservatism has lost a lot if influence in the Republican Party, at least in the last two elections. Which I believe is a good thing, but the Religious-Right is still there and powerful there. And of course now with the Tea Party movement that's now run by economic Conservatives and Religious Conservatives and with GOV. Rockefeller being fairly liberal at least to some extent on social issues except for crime and punishment, I don't see how Nelson Rockefeller gets elected in the Republican Party today. He would probably be a better fit as a Democrat today with his liberal views on some social Issues. And his beliefs in public service and infrastructure investment, but probably like a Joe Lieberman.

Nelson Rockefeller was a social Liberal and somewhat progressive on economic policy. But more conservative on crime and punishment and foreign policy. I mean the Rockefeller Drug Laws aren't called that for nothing, GOV. Rockefeller played a big role in advancing the War on Drugs in America. And also served as President Ford's Vice President. Mr. Rockefeleller clearly had conservative leanings, but not enough of them for him to be successful in the Republican Party today. So where would Nelson Rockefeller go politically or maybe he would work on a third-party Movement instead.

I don't see Nelson Rockefeller as a centrist, but an independent and they are different. A centrist is someone who's pretty much middle of the road on most major political issues. But Rockefeller had clear political views, some conservative which is why he was a Republican. But also some liberal and progressive which is why I don't believe he would be a Republican today. So maybe the Independence Party or a movement for that would've taken off with Rockefelller and George Wallace as their Leaders. 

Nelson Rockefeller would be a prototypical Independent candidate and perfect for that type of political party as well. Someone who could help advance a Independence movement and would've been a great third-party candidate today. I don't think he would've gotten elected President this way, but definitely been a factor as a presidential candidate. Sort of like George Wallace in 1968, Jack Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992. And perhaps because of this we could've ended the two-party-system that under represents a lot of American voters and we could've had more choices in who to vote for. 


Chris Early: Video: CBS's Dallas: The Best of J.R. Ewing: The Funniest Prick in the Southwest


This post was originally posted at FRS Citizen Journal on Blogger, November, 2012

The J.R. Ewing character played by Larry Hagman is one of my favorite characters of all time on TV. Because he was so real, didn't try to be the nicest guy in the World and wasn't the meanest. But he was one of the best, let's say dick's of all-time, not because he was the meanest, but because of how clever and funny he was. And the words he chose to at other peoples expense. J.R. Ewing was a dick, but he played by Larry Hagman was so good at it, that you almost had to respect him for it. "That asshole can really put you down". 

J.R. is one of those people that you always knew where you were with him. And if you weren't on the top of your game, he would be more than willing to let you know about it. Kinda of like that judge mental parent or perhaps uncle, where nothing is ever good enough for them. So what you always do is everything you can to try to please that person, to keep them from criticizing you. Which helps you in a way, because it gives you incentive to improve and be at your best. The constructive critic. 

I call J.R. Ewing who was played by Larry Hagman of course and I'm not sure anyone could've played J.R. better, because their sense of humors matched up so well, the funniest prick in the Southwest. Because he knew how to put someone down, or put them back in their place, especially when they were out of line. But he was accurate and direct. Someone who would tell you the way it is and make you laugh at the same time.