Saturday, January 31, 2015

CBS: Video: The Alfred Hitchcock Hour: The Lonely Hours, From 1963

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

The Lonely Hours is about a couple that has a spare room to rent. Even though we never see the husband in this show. But this couple with Gena Rowlands playing the wife have three kids together. A women who sees their ad in the paper I guess played by Nancy Kelly, stops by to rent the room at the Henderson’s house. She also ends up becoming the kids babysitter even though Mrs. Henderson has done no research on the women who is renting her bedroom. And has no idea who she is, about her history and what she’s doing there.

Nancy Kelly plays a very lonely women who almost falls in love with the Henderson baby. Sounds strange but loves this baby so much that she now believes the baby is actually hers and even kidnaps the baby. And that is what Mrs. Henderson finally wakes up and realizes that the new women is not right and something really bad is going and sets out find her and get her baby back. Gena Rowlands not only looks like a goddess on this show with her hot baby-face looks and tall sexy body. But she’s also a hell of an actress and does a great job of playing the loving mother protecting her family from a sick dangerous women.

Old School Trailers: Coyote Ugly 2000- Starring Piper Perabo, Maria Bello, Bridget Moynihan & Tyra Banks

Source:Old School Trailers- Trailer for Coyote Ugly 2000. 
Source:The New Democrat

I’m going to be real honest here and take note of that, because it might be a while before you see me being honest again. And I go back to being a lying bastard till the Chicago Cubs win the World Series. I had never heard of Coyote Ugly until I saw this movie, well until I heard this movie was out some time I guess in the spring or summer of 2000. I didn’t know that Coyote Ugly was not only a real bar, but a national corporation with a chain or Coyote Ugly bars all around the country. Including Washington where I live around in Bethesda. Some times it takes a big movie like this for me to discover new things.

And then after the movie I see the show Wild On with Brooke Burke that was on E back in the day do a feature about Coyote about a year or so after the movie came out. TLC did a realty show about Coyote like in the spring of 2004 about a woman who wants to become a Coyote dancer. And talent scouts I guess from Coyote show her the ropes. CMT launches a series in 2004, a contest really that gives tryouts for Coyote dancers and other employees with the winners getting jobs with the company. And that show lasts for about five seasons or so. And I still have several of those episodes on DVD.
This one movie completely got me into the world of Coyote Ugly. Not just because of the movie, but also because of all the shows about Coyote that came after. This post is not so much about the movie itself, which is a very good movie. But how one movie got a country interested in the Coyote Ugly bar and company. Their women, their dancers and everything that they are about and how they launch the careers of attracted sexy intelligent talented women. Who just need that one break to show the world what they can do.
Old School Trailers: Coyote Ugly 2000- Trailer

C-SPAN: BookNotes: How Watergate Was Uncovered and Caused Richard Nixon's Downfall (1991)

Source:The New Democrat

I’ll tell you how Watergate was uncovered. Ask John Dean, nah, just kidding, but John Dean is how Watergate broke. I’m not saying that Watergate wouldn’t have broken without John Dean. And I’m not talking about the Washington Watergate burglary itself, which is a local Washington police story a point that I’ve made before. The Watergate scandal that I’m talking about really needs a new name for the scandal that it was. Because the real scandal in the Nixon White House was not the Watergate burglary, because President Nixon didn’t order or organize that. And it wasn’t the coverup either.

The real scandal in the Nixon White House was what Len Colodny said in this video which was the Nixon secret government. The criminal operations inside of the Nixon White House. The plumbers really and what that unit inside of the Nixon White House and what they were doing. The illegal break ins and intelligence operations done by this group to get intelligence on Dick Nixon opponents and even enemies. And opponents of the Nixon Administration itself.
Where John Dean comes in as White House counsel up until the summer of 1973 when Congress started looking into this story with the Senate Watergate hearings, is that Dean broke what was going on in the Nixon White House. He was in charge of the Watergate coverup, but also knew about the plumbers and everything they were doing. And without John Dean, we not only don’t know what President Nixon knew and when he knew it. But we also don’t know about the criminal operations that were going on inside of the Nixon White House. Because Congress was asleep and not doing their proper oversight of the Nixon White House.

The Larry Grayson Show: Diana Dors (1974)

Diana Dors is so freakin adorable and then throw in the fact that she’s so funny as well. Which I think gives you a great idea of how good of an actress she really was. She was playing comedian on this show and doing it without a script. Larry Grayson was a British comedian and I imagine a pretty good at that, even though I’m not that familiar with him. And they obviously knew each other very well. But he’s a comedian, his show is supposed to be funny similar to The Dick Cavett Show and he brings Diana on and she plays the role of comedian. She wasn’t playing straight women lets say to Grayson’s funny man and he wasn’t playing the straight man on this show either. They were both very funny and talking about things they’ve worked on and what they have in common. And the chemistry between them was great and it made a for a funny interview. If you want to call it an interview.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Captain Black: Video: New Detectives, Trial of The Century

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

I have to believe that looking at the evidence from the outside in the O.J. Simpson case, the case against O.J. Simpson that the man has to be guilty of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. I think commonsense has to tell you that especially the fact that O.J.’s blood is all over the crime scene. A holy bloody river, game, set, match at least as far as I’m concern. I mean if I’m a prosecutor or a police detective or sergeant and you forget about all the side stories in this case, I don’t think I could dream of a better case to have.

And having said all that with perfect case presented to the Los Angeles Police Department and District Attorney’s Office, they still managed to screw it up. But putting that all aside, if I’m on that jury and even with Mark Furhman garbage in the case that makes him look like he should have no business in law enforcement, except as a defendant, just based on the evidence in front of me I would have to think that O.J. is probably guilty here. Otherwise what is all of O.J.’s blood doing at the crime scene.
One of the best cases possible that you could possibly dream of, at least as far as the evidence. And the jury in that case still screwed it up and that is assuming that they actually went into the case with an open mind and didn’t decide well before that they weren’t going to vote guilty regardless. And just argue that Detective Furhman planted all the evidence against O.J. Including his blood, which would be borderline impossible to imagine. I mean Furhman would’ve had to of stabbed O.J. over and over to get all of that blood out of him.

Wicked Attraction: Blood Brothers

Source:The New Democrat

If you are familiar with the Hillside Stranglers in the Los Angeles area, then the serial murderers of Leonard Lake and his buddy Charles Ng should sound familiar to you. Except Lake and Ng murdered in the San Francisco area, but what these four men have in common is that they are all pretty pathetic assholes really. Who had rough upbringings and were never very successful in life really at anything that they ever tried to do. Except for perhaps murdering, but go back to them being assholes, had it not have been for Charles Ng’s addiction to steal they wouldn’t have been caught at least when they did. Had Ng not have been a shoplifter knocking off convenient stores, they might still be in business today.

Caerdsp Roabano: Video: Dick Cavett's Watergate, Secrets of The Dead

Source:The New Democrat

At best I can gather, God that sounds lame, but as best as I know it, President Richard Nixon made the decision to coverup the Watergate investigation the day his Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman gave him his first intelligence briefing about it. The day after the story broke or something close to that. The decision might have been made by President Nixon to coverup the investigation the day the President found out that people from his reelection campaign were involved in the break in. But the Nixon White House made the decision to coverup the story fairly early on in this story. So Dick Nixon sealed his fate and presidency early on in this story because he’s on tape officially deciding to coverup the story. Without the taping system we wouldn’t have known that.

The Bob Hope Show: Diana Dors (1956)

Source:The New Democrat

Diana Dors showing her versatility as a comedian on The Bob Hope Show. Going toe to toe with one of the top lets says one-percent of comedians of all-time. I guess Bob is living out of his fantasies, perhaps drunk fantasies in having Diana Dors a goddess sent down from heaven as his partner and even wife on his show. Making every man in America, that is every man with a pair of eyes and vision and I’m sure some blind men as well jealous of him. Diana Dors certainly preferred Britain over America and her lovely adorable English accent is an example of that. And used America for her work and this is where she became famous. So coming to America was perhaps not something she loved doing, but her coming over here was gift down from heaven for millions of Americans.

Delicately Durable: Video: O.J. Simpson Trial: Drama of a Century

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Without the O.J. Simpson trial would we of gotten so-called reality TV that became popular in the late 1990s or so? The O.J. trial was reality TV because it was real and it was happening everyday. Not wannabe celebrities who find themselves on a TV show and act out trying to make a career for themselves as a full-time celebrity if nothing else. And this certainly wasn’t a fictional drama. This was a real thing with real murder victims and a real defendant.

And not Joe Smith Pittsburgh truck driver defendant who perhaps was caught driving his truck drunk and ends up killing someone as a result. This was one of the most popular celebrities and former athletes of all-time. Who also made a career for himself as an NFL analyst for NBC Sports and as well as a somewhat accomplished movie actor and corporate spokesman. Who also lives in the entertainment capital of the world in Los Angeles. Who was culturally and racially mainstream and loved by Americans of all backgrounds.
But if that is not enough for you. throw in a wealthy famous African-American man, accused of murdering his ex-wife who is Anglo and their friend Ron Goldman who is Jewish. And throw tensions between the African-American and Jewish-American communities, at least in Los Angeles. The justifiable mistrust of the African-American community, perhaps especially in Los Angeles of law enforcement. I mean better scripts aren’t written in Hollywood than this.
If you want to know why celebrity culture at least in my opinion is out of control and why it now replaces and takes over for hard news, I give you the O.J. Simpson trial of 1994-95. Perhaps the two most unforgettable years at least in the last twenty years or so. Because now you have the internet, even in its early days to go along with cable news. And then throw in where it happened and who the defendant is and there’s no secret why this case got as much attention that it did

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Wicked Attraction: The Witch Killers: Michael & Suzan Carson

Source:The New Democrat  

Of all the serial murderers that I know of and have followed in one form or the other, Michael and Suzan Carson have to be the weirdest. And that includes serial murderers like Jeff Dahmer and Charlie Manson. So you know I think you have to be out there to murder in the first place and then way out in left field to become a serial murderer. Good luck hitting a home run to left field in a ballpark of a serial murderer. But then throw in LSD and other mind-warping drugs and you have two people who simply live on a another planet. Visiting Earth to do their evil acts.

And the other thing that gets me about the Carson’s, that is similar to the Manson Family women is that the Carson’s came from good solid normal loving middle class American families. They were not Charlie Manson in the sense of someone who never really had a real home outside of jail. They weren’t people who grew up to abusive parents, or in awful neighborhoods and dropped out of high school to join the local gang of losers. These people had good upbringings and had the opportunity to be very successful in life.
I’m not sure this is a case of two people who were fairly normal and then one day snapped. Suzan didn’t have many of any friends growing up and perhaps as a young women as well. Michael showed signs of going off the lamb during his first marriage. They were both showing signs of mental instability before they even met. So in this sense at least they were sort of perfect for each other. Two people who didn’t fit in well anywhere, but in a horrible sense were perfect each other. Which meant anyone they didn’t like was in danger of losing their lives.

Mark Pfister: Video: Secrets of War, Documentary on The Nixon Presidency

Source:The New Democrat

Assuming that this is true that Richard Nixon was negotiating with North Vietnam, the Communist Republic of Vietnam back then, as a private citizen without the permission of the Lyndon Johnson Administration, then you can add that to the long list of charges and real felonies that any other American would’ve done at least twenty-years on in prison for. Assuming the prosecution decided to prosecute Dick Nixon on all of those charges. And if this is true, then Nixon became a criminal before he became President of the United States.

And this is two or three years before Watergate and a couple of years before the plumbers unit was installed in the Nixon White House. The plumbers and the criminal operations inside of the Nixon White House was the real crimes of the Nixon White House. What Watergate did, well actually what the Nixon coverup of Watergate did, was to blow open all the illegal operations of the Nixon White House. That would’ve gotten President Nixon impeached by the U.S. House in 1974 and most likely convicted by the U.S. Senate in the same year as well.
What the Nixon campaign did in 1968 and then of course the plumbers unit in the White House in the early 1970s, there’s no way they would’ve gotten way with that today. And probably not in the 1990s and perhaps not the 1980s as well. Because they were holding so many secrets and trying to plug so many holes. And those holes would’ve broken in the information revolution of cable news and the internet. And people in the White House quite frankly, trying to save their asses.

Captain Bijou: The Long Haul (1957) Starring Victor Mature & Diana Dors

Source:The New Democrat

Take Diana Dors who is a hot sexy baby-face goddess, perhaps the cutest Hollywood goddess of all-time and The Long Haul is still a very good movie. Because it has a very good cast and it gives you a very good look at not just organized crime, but organized crime in the trucking industry, but also organized crime in Britain over in England. And Diana does a great job in this movie as well. The first Princess Diana in Britain, at least as far as I’m concern.

Victor Mature plays a U.S. Army Sergeant stationed over in post-World War II Britain in England. He’s already married with a son over there to an English women. Harry wants to go home to America, but his English wife doesn’t. So Harry stays, but also needs a job in England and finds one as a truck driver. Linda played by Diana is the girlfriend of an English mobster who owns a trucking company. Harry gets a straight job as a truck driver and meets Linda who wants to leave her mobster boyfriend and takes her away. But the mobster’s gang just also happens to jack Harry’s truck on his first night.
That is how this movie really starts where Harry now needs a job to support his English wife and son, but can only get a job with this English gang in the trucking industry. He doesn’t want to do it. Linda wants to escape Joe played by Patrick Allen, her mobster boyfriend and start a life with Harry. Harry is in between starting a new affair with Linda and staying with his wife because of his son and he still loves his wife. But he also needs a job and that is where this job starts moving real fast. Because now Joe is on the run for murdering his top deputy. And takes Linda with him and Harry helps him get away from the law.
This is not a great movie. I would give it an 8.5 I guess, but certainly a very good movie that you don’t need Diana Dors in it to make it interesting. But a women like that can make a bad movie look good because of how great she is and how she looks. And then you throw in the plot and the movie has an excellent cast with Diana Dors, Victor Mature, Patrick Allen and others. The movie takes place in post-World War II England where people there are trying to rebuild their lives and you have a very good movie.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

The Week: Jeff Spross: Three Reasons Why Work Requirements For Food Stamps Are a Bad Idea

Here’s a big area where the Democratic Party disagrees. Where the Center-Left liberal New Democrats such as myself, disagrees with the more further left lets say Progressives and our quite frankly Far-Left. Our more social democratic least Democrats in the party. It is in the area of the role of government and more specifically our social insurance system and what should be expected from our citizens from themselves when it comes to managing their own affairs.

The difference being between Liberals who believe in independence, including economic dependence and for people to have the freedom over their own lives. Versus lets say Social Democrats in the party who have a more collectivist approach and don’t see a problem with people having to have long-term public assistance, even if they are able-bodied and mentally able to do that for themselves, if they just had the skills to do so, in order to survive. Even seeing it as a good thing that people have government taking care of them. Instead of people having to do that for themselves.
Bill Clinton, perhaps the most famous New Democrat in America now has a somewhat famous saying and campaign theme which was part of his 1992 presidential campaign, which was public assistance shouldn’t be free. That it should be an investment in people and not simply charity. And you can argue that simply giving people public assistance checks is an investment in them, because they’ll have that money to eat and everything else in order to live. And of course that money will go directly back in the economy right away. But that is not what then Governor Clinton meant.
What Bill Clinton was talking about was investing people’s human capital. Empowering them to be able to get the tools and skills that they need to actually get off of public assistance. Because now they have a good education, which may even include life training and can use those skills to get themselves a good job that pays their own bills and no longer need public assistance and private charity to survive. A much different approach from simply cutting people off simply because they’ve been on public assistance for a long time. Or saying that they don’t have to do anything while on public assistance, other than to use that assistance to pay their bills.
To tell people who are on public assistance, but are low-income workers that they have an option, but not requirement to get education and job training assistance as part of their government assistance and probably a lot of them will take that as well if they want to actually get out of poverty and become economically independent. But you tell them that they have to do nothing while on public assistance other than to stay out of trouble and oh by the way the way they aren’t eligible for education and job training assistance anyway as part of their public assistance, very few of them will ever leave poverty. Because they won’t be able to get themselves the skills to do so.
Work requirements are the incentive that unfortunately a lot of Americans who didn’t finish high school and haven’t shown a lot of responsibility and positive decision-making with their lives, need in order to take control over their own lives. And to build a positive future for themselves and their kids. But they aren’t a magic bullet and with them you also need education and job training assistance and even requirement so people aren’t leaving Welfare and other programs to go work a minimum wage job, multiple minimum wage jobs. You need both of those things working together.

New York Daily News: S.E. Cupp: State of The Union a Window Into Obama's Mind

New York Daily News: Opinion: S.E. Cupp: State of The Union, A Window in Obama's Mind

Source:The New Democrat

What I don’t think that S.E. Cupp gets that is of course President Obama was taking a victory lap last night. Which is his right, because the economy is finally moving and moving well. No longer are we talking about one-percent economic growth and creating somewhere around a hundred-thousand jobs per month, with unemployment still well over seven-percent. We are seeing real job growth around three-hundred-thousand jobs per month and economic growth 3-4% and wages finally growing again. And all of this happened under President Obama’s watch and any Republican president would’ve taken the same credit.

The whole point of the State of The Union, well just look at that phrase State of The Union, the President explains the situation of the country. Where we are doing well and things that we need to work on and things that we could be doing better at. And then giving some ideas about what he would do in those areas and where he believes he can work with Congress on. Which is what President Obama did with his version of Morning in America, which was about a year late for a lot Congressional Democrats who are no longer in Congress. He said he believes he can work with Congressional Republicans. He pointed to trade, tax reform and infrastructure.
The President said we meaning Democrats and Republicans in Congress and Barack Obama himself agree for the need for new infrastructure investment. But disagree on how to pay for it. Both sides want to pay for it, but differ on how to pay for it. Which is true and that is why we haven’t had any infrastructure bills come out of Congress since the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The President said they agree on the need for new free trade and that he’s waiting for Congress pass new trade bills. Which is also true that Congressional Democrats, not Republicans especially in the Senate will fight him on.

The President said there’s bipartisan agreement on tax reform. Lower rates and eliminating loopholes, which is also true. The disagreement is where tax reform should be revenue neutral or not. Should rates be lowered to make up for every single tax loophole elimination, which is what revenue neutral is. The President did issue some veto threats and why would that be any surprise to any smart Republican. I mean are they really expecting him to say yes to legislation he disagrees with. The job of the President is not to everything that Congress wants. And for Congress to give the President everything he wants. Whether government is divided or not.

Another part of the State of The Union is to layout what the President wants to do in the coming year and where he believes he can work with Congress on. Especially in areas where they know there’s already agreement on. Infrastructure, trade, tax reform and criminal justice reform are the issues that President Obama has found agreement with Congressional Republicans on. And in the next year or so we’ll see if he has any success with working with them on. Or will this be about 2016 with each party giving the country their agenda. With Americans having the opportunity to give one party a united government.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Lenny Kravitz: Video: Dream, Martin Luther King Day

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

I think it is pretty clear that within the last few weeks, months if not year of Dr. King’s life that he knew his time was coming to an end and it was just a matter of time. That he already had been sentenced to death by Anglo racists and if wasn’t James Ray that assassinated him, some other racist asshole to put it frankly was going to nail him. And that Dr. King wasn’t going to do whatever possible to simply stay alive, because he wanted to use his time to get his message out as much as possible. He made that clear in his last speech the night before he was killed about he’s seen the promise land and that he might not get there with you. But his dream is still alive thanks to him and over forty-five years later we’re closer to racial quality and racial tolerance than we ever have been as a country.

Reason Magazine: Catherine Manu-Ward Interviewing Campbell Brown on Education Reform

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Campbell Brown that pubic teacher tenure is wrong, needs to go out of style and disappear like disco and acid wash jeans. And I’ve even with her on school choice and I’ll explain both of my positions later. But where I differ with Campbell is on school choice and how to do that. We completely agree on tenure, but at least as far as I’m concern tax dollars for education should be for public education. That is really the first and only responsibility for government when it comes to education. Which is the schools that we all as taxpayers pay for and since that is the case we have a responsibility to make those schools as good as possible especially for kids from low-income single-parent families.

If private schools want to set up their own school voucher programs and recruit kids from low-income families to go to their schools and people want to contribute to those private programs, by all means. And I would probably be one of those contributors, but it wouldn’t be because government said I had to, but because I made the choice to do that with my own money. Now what I am in favor with to go along with eliminating teacher tenure, is public school choice. The idea that someone has to go to a certain public school simply because of where they live is crazy, unproductive and bad for the economy. Because it means if you are from a low-income family and unless you perhaps won a private school voucher, you’re destined to go to a bad school.

Keith Hughes: Video: What is a Conservative?

Source:The New Democrat

I’m just going to give you the classical definition of conservative and conservatism and how you believe that relates today, that is up to you. Because I’m not so much into classical or modern when it comes to conservative, but what it actually means to be a Conservative. And I go to Abraham Lincoln and look at least some of our Founding Fathers. Up to Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s, Robert Taft in the 1940s, Dwight Eisenhower at least to a certain extent in the 1950s, Barry Goldwater from the time he entered Congress in the 1950s, until time Senator Goldwater left Congress in 1987. And then I would go to Rand Paul today and the conservative libertarian wing of the Tea Party.

If words are going to matter, than so have to definitions, otherwise words are just words, sort of like a politician giving a speech, but not really saying anything. So when I look at the word conservative, I look at the word conserving. I know! Shocking right, the nerve of me, but that is what conservative means, someone who believes in conserving. And the other way to look at conservative, would be someone who believes in moving conservatively. “Not so fast, Joe, lets take another look at this before we decide where to go from here”. John Boehner Speaker of the House, fits that definition like a glove.
So now take conservative up to politics and how does that relate and especially the role of government. Okay, so I’ll give you the political conservative how that plays to role of government. So a Conservative is not going to want to expand the government. At least not quickly and again they believe in conserving. So a Conservative won’t vote to repeal someone’s individual rights. And that gets to property rights and one’s money like with tax increases. Where a Conservative will tend to be against. But that also gets to things as it relates to personal issues, like the Right to Privacy. A Conservative is not going to support limiting or subtracting those things. Why, because that fails two tests of being a conservative. Subtracting instead of conserving and expanding the role of government.
If you have heard Barry Goldwater’s line about big government, I suggest you do because it a must get as far as what it means to be a Conservative. “I’m a Conservative because I want big government out of my wallet, bedroom, boardroom and classroom”. So a Conservative is not going to support taxes hikes, property rights restrictions and regulations that put government in charge of running private organizations. But a Conservative is not going to support at least ay the federal level laws that tell Americans, consenting adults who they can sleep with, who they can marry, what they can do in the privacy of their own home and how they can spend their own money.
If you call yourself a Conservative, because you are against big government and believe in individual freedom, then you are against big government as it relates to both the economy, but personal lives and personal issues. Otherwise you’re not a Conservative, perhaps You are half of a Conservative, Perhaps you’re half of the loaf. “I believe in individual freedom when it comes to economic policy and big government because it comes to our personal affairs. Because Americans are smart enough to know what to do with their money. But not smart enough to know how to spend it on their own, or manage their own personal affairs”. Now you’re not a Conservative, but a pandering politician and propagandist. There’s what conservatism means to a non-Conservative.

Foreign Affairs: Anton Barbashin: The Eurasian Economic Union Is An Illusion

Source:The New Democrat

Eurasia lets call it, the area east of the European Union with the first Slavic states and former Soviet republics, all the way over to the Arab states, will never be very successful economically as long as Russia is run by someone who simply wants to put the Soviet Union back together. Or bring back all of those republics back to Russia. And not so much interested in what is in the best interest of the people in these countries. Because decisions will always be made on how to obtain greater power and territory. And not what is in the best interest of the economies in these Slavic countries.

Russia will always be a potentially great country and new superpower, with its great and educated population, land mass, and natural resources and not actually returning to the world again as a superpower, but this time economically to go along with militarily and diplomatically, as long as Vladimir Putin is running the government there. Whether he has the official title as Russian Federation President or not. As long as Vlad is interested in obtaining more power and territory for Russia and not developing the economy so it reaches most if not all the Russian people, Russia will remain a developing power, if not country all together.

The Onion: 'John Elway Casually Mentions To Peyton Manning How Great it Was Going Out on Top'

I’m going to be serious for a minutes, all right fine maybe two minutes just to say that Peyton Manning even if he is the best regular season quarterback of all-time, which would be like being the best team of all-time that didn’t win the Super Bowl in the NFL, Peyton who I respect as a great quarterback, is simply overrated. Peyton Manning is a fan favorite of the stats and now generation. People who judge athletes by their numbers and the fact that they are playing now, must mean they are better than players who played before simply because of that.

If you judge players especially quarterbacks by how well they play in the playoffs and their record in the playoffs and not how many times they threw for four-thousand yards and thirty touchdown passes, Peyton would be pretty far down on the greatest quarterbacks list. Even if he is the best regular season quarterback of all-time. And keep in mind, all of Peyton’s personal success as a quarterback as far as stats has not come in the passing age, which was the 1980s and the 1990s. But the Roger Goddell age where the NFL has simply decided that offense is more important than defense for financial reasons. And have made it very difficult for defenses because of the rules to be successful.
I mean how many great quarterbacks do you know of have losing records in the playoffs and are headed to the Hall of Fame if they are not already there? Peyton Manning would be one, can you name any others. Tom Brady could easily tell Peyton, “look, you have better numbers, but I have the numbers that count the most. I’ve won twice as many playoff games that you have and have won 2/3 of my playoff games. I’ve played in five Super Bowls, won three of them and have a winning record in them. But you look better on SportsCenter, YouTube, social networks and so-forth. So congratulations, but I’ll keep my victories and championships”. I doubt Brady has ever said that, but he could and would be right about that.
Is Peyton Manning one of the best quarterbacks of all-time and lets say that is top ten if not twenty, dumb question and he’s probably somewhere around ten for me, if not further back. And of course he’s a top two or three quarterbacks of his era. Only behind Tom Brady and Brett Favre, because of what Brady and Favre accomplished both in the regular season and playoffs. But I’m getting tired of hearing Peyton mentioned as the greatest quarterback of all-time and I’m not that comfortable about him as the greatest regular season QB of all-time. Simply because of the era he played in. And he’s certainly not the best quarterback of all-time and neither is Tom Brady.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Julie Skyhigh: ‘Smokin in Met Skinny Jeans in Skyhigh Suede Boots’

Source:Julie Skyhigh- Julie Skyhigh, smokin in Met skinny jeans in boots.
Source:The New Democrat 

“Woman Smoking Cigar skyhigh smoking in suede boots and fitted MET jeans” 

From Lucina Rochelle

Interesting video. Beautiful woman in skinny Met denim jeans, in suede boots, with a beautiful jacket, smoking a cigar. I understand the skinny jeans in suede boots look. I’m one of the biggest fans of that and one of the earliest fans of that when it came back into style in 2005. After disappearing when it came into style originally in the late 1970s as part of the designer jeans revolution.

It’s the smoking with a cigar and the need that some women seem to have to show themselves smoking in skinny jeans. I’m not a fan of smoking and I’m not a smoker, but that’s not what I don’t understand about that. It’s the fact that this is no longer the 1960s or 1970s, 1980s even. When you almost had to smoke at least in celebrity and entertainment culture to be considered cool.

Smoking has been going out of style since the 1990s or so with all the bad information that we have about the dangers of tobacco. And yet some women seem to think it’s cool to be seen smoking with jeans and smoking with jeans and boots. If you want to continue to look sexy in skinny jeans and boots, then give up the tobacco and you’ll make that easier, because you’ll age slower. Along with staying in shape.

The Dean Martin Show: The World is Coming to an End in Five Minutes

Source:The New Democrat

Hum with my pointer finger at my head, I wonder who was the star of The Dean Martin Show and who The Dean Martin Show was named after? Boy I gotta hand it to the boy genius’ at NBC for coming up with such a cleaver and original name for a show. Aw the hell with it, maybe I’ll that out by the time I figure out what color is red and what’s the number for 911.

As far as the world coming to an end in five-minutes. Don’t give me so much time to prepare. I mean just think how much time I could waste freaking out, or pointing at my head about what to do. Should I spend the time freaking out, or thinking about what I should do in those five minutes, perhaps spend four minutes coming up with something and hoping I can get it done before I blow up or something. See if I can get one of the last tickets to the Moon or Mars. Perhaps call Star Trek and have them beam me up. All the decisions one would have to make in that amount of time.

Random Acts of Knowledge: Video: Watergate: The Conspiracy Crumbles, 1994

Source:The New Democrat

President Nixon killed his presidency, at least his second term the day he decided to tell his Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman to order the FBI to drop their Watergate investigation. Once Dick Nixon learned that members of his own campaign team and people who also worked for his White House were involved in Watergate, he decided that the way to handle this investigation was to cover up. But covering up Watergate is like trying to stop a river that is flooding, with a mop. You know, good luck and I hope you don’t drown trying to mop your own floor.

Again Watergate by itself, minor league baseball perhaps even rookie ball for players who just graduated high school and looking for a job in the summer. A typical job done by, quite frankly assholes who don’t know what the hell they’re doing. Perhaps are high on Red Bull or something and looking for something to do at around 3AM. But Watergate was a coverup in its own, because it covered up the real scandals in the Nixon White House. The organized crime operation done at the expense of Nixon political opponents.
If Watergate broke and people know the truth behind Watergate, the Nixon presidency goes down as well. That was President Nixon’s calculation. Not something that a politician of Dick Nixon’s talent, skills and intelligence would assume. They would say, “look we’re not involved here, let the Washington PD and FBI needed do their jobs and let’s get back to national affairs”. And that would be the cynical attitude. The good public servant would’ve said, “this is a Washington police story, let them do their jobs and we’ll do ours”.
One of the sad things about Watergate, is that a lot of the men involved were good moral men. Gordon Liddy, a conscience short of being a good person and a case of beer short of being a sane person would be an exception. But most of these men were career lawyers and good family men with wives and kids. And had they never of worked for Dick Nixon, they never end up in a scandal like this. Hell, had Dick Nixon not of become President, he probably ends up running his own New York law firm, or a college professor. A very talented man.

The New Republic: Kevin Mahnken: President Pro Tempore Orrin Hatch and Need For Succession Reform

Here’s a post that perhaps only political, Constitution and American history junkies would be interested. I just happen to be all three, so I’m more than qualified to be interested in this. But here’s something that I actually agree with a New Socialist, I mean New Republic author on and that is the need to reform U.S. Senate rules and perhaps even the U.S. Constitution itself. That is if the Senate simply couldn’t reform the President Pro Tempore position itself. And it might be able to since under the Constitution Congress writes its own rules. But I’m not a lawyer.

But what I would like to see done in the Senate and I’ll explain why assuming this could be done by the U.S. Senate laterally, is to add an amendment to the Pro Tempore position. The amendment would say that the majority party decides who the Pro Tempore is and that person doesn’t have to the longest Senator in the majority party. Actually I would go further than that and say the Pro Tempore or Leader of the Senate, whatever the title of the position is who would be the first ranking member of the Senate, would be an at-large seat and member. Mot elected by a state, but by the American people themselves, or at the very least the Senate majority members. But that is for a future post.
What I would do is essentially male the Pro Tempore or Leader of the Senate like the Speaker of the House for the Senate. The lead presiding officer, but also the person who appoints committee chairman, decides what bills come to the floor and up for a vote. And have that person in charge of the Senate floor. Because if we are going to even have this position, then it shouldn’t be signed to someone simply because they are the oldest or have been in the Senate the longest. If the Pro Tempore should ever become President because something happens to the President, Vice President and Speaker, that person should be ready to be President and healthy enough for the job.
I doubt Orrin Hatch ever wants to be President of the United States, at least at this point, he did run in 2000. He’s someone who I respect as a Liberal, even though he’s pretty right-wing and I’m not taking this position because he is currently the Pro Tempore. But just to point out that someone shouldn’t be the chief presiding officer of the Senate with real responsibilities, that is when the Vice President is not up at Congress and third inline for the presidency, just because they are in their late seventies or eighties and have been in the Senate for a long time.

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Jim Morrison: 1967 Shelby Mustang- 'Best Quality'

Source:The New Democrat- The Lizard King Jim Morrison.

Source:The New Democrat

"Jim Morrison driving his 1967 Shelby G.T. 500. The clip is from the film "When You're Strange" (directed by Tom DiCillo) which is in turn borrowed from the movie "HWY: An American Pastoral" which Jim made in 1969 with some friends (Paul Ferrara, Babe Hill, and Frank Lisciandro). This footage is considerably clearer than my previous post of Jim driving the car. Go full screen with this clip, the resolution is killer. You can even see dust on the car it's so crisp and clear." 

Source:Toodlem- The Lizard King Jim Morrison, driving his Shelby Mustang.

From Toodlem

This video was part of a 2010 PBS film about The Doors, really about Jim Morrison and The Doors, which what really drew my interest to the film that I have on dvd. And this is how the film starts off, with The Lizard King taking to the highway I believe in Southern California desert. And he starts off hitchhiking and someone in a Shelby Mustang, great car by the way, picks him up and somehow which is not shown in film, The Lizard King ends up with the car and driving the car.

Only The Lizard King would wear skin-tight black leather jeans in the California desert, but that is one thing that made him The Lizard King. And the original film I believe from 1969 I believe was part of Morrison needing a break from the music business and perhaps The Doors as a whole. And that is what they show with Lizard King hitting the road and seeing what life if like outside of his world. And its a good little film, the 1969 version and the 2010 PBS version Strange Days is even better and it shows this part in that film.

DCCAH: Bayard Rustin & James Baldwin: Freedom Fighters & Friends

Source:The New Democrat

James Baldwin and Bayard Rustin both had two strikes against them and really in Bayard’s case three. But I guess he didn’t strike out because the umpire felt charitable or what have you. But they were both Black and of African descent and if that is not bad enough for Caucasian racists, they were both gay as well. Which would be like someone who is an Atheist, Socialist and a Communist and perhaps even supporter of Islāmic Jihad against Americans all in the same package. These two men were considered devils by anyone who had excuse the expression, shit for brains and not smart enough to know better.

But these two men were two of the best freedom fighters that America has ever produced, because they both knew what they wanted and were intelligent. Confronting people who weren’t intelligent and saw African people as animals and devils who should still be slaves. All they wanted was the same freedom as any other American. The right to live their lives and the right not to be discriminated against based on race. To have their constitutional rights enforced as equally as Caucasian-Americans. Nothing more than nothing less and if you look at the U.S. Constitution, that is a lot of what it is about. And a big part of the American dream.

Mark Whitney: Video: Watergate: 784 Days That Changed America, 1980

Source:The New Democrat

Lets say the Watergate burglary was exactly that, or perhaps was done by people who were really loyal to the Nixon campaign, but not connected to the campaign in any way and never had been connected to the campaign in any way, this would’ve been nothing more than a Washington police story reported by the Washington local media. But the thing is Watergate became a wall holding back a river of water and when the Watergate scandal broke everything that the Nixon White House was covering up also broke. Watergate was the key to opening up every illegal operation that the Nixon White House was involved in.

As bad as covering up the Watergate scandal that the White House was involved in, it was single A minor league baseball compared to what the White House was doing. The illegal break ins, planting false information on their political opponents, which is what they did to George McGovern presidential campaign, as well as the George Wallace presidential campaign. The plumbers unit itself, the White House intelligence unit that pulled off a lot of the break ins was illegal because it hadn’t been sanctioned by law.
Were there past presidents that had been involved in illegal activities and using their agencies to interfere and abuse their political opponents, I’m sure there were. But those presidents didn’t have a Watergate and had the judgement to not let scandals get out of hand and not cover them up. They didn’t have a Watergate and they didn’t cover up a Watergate. Without Watergate, we may still not know today about the illegal activities that the Nixon White House was involved in. Third-rate burglary, sure but still one of the most important stories and scandals in American history.

Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (1957) Starring Tony Randall & Jayne Mansfield

Jayne Mansfield plays Rita Marlowe in Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter and I believe and have heard that Marlowe was one of the names that Jayne considered changing her last name to after arriving in Hollywood. But instead settled for Mansfield the last name of her first ex-husband. But anyway Rita Marlowe is a star actress and Hollywood goddess who goes to New York, because she wants to improve her image. New York is the advertising capital at least of America, so not a better city to choose from.

Tony Randall plays Rock Hunter a talented and semi-successful advertiser, who hasn’t hit it big yet in the business. The firm he works for is looking for a big account that would bring them a lot of money and future clients. Rock is looking for the that one big account that would jumpstart his career and take him to the top. It turns out that Rita and Rock are perfect for each other, because they both have what the other needs. Rita would be that account that would Rock’s firm needs. And Rock has what Rita needs which is an intelligent successful professional man who would make her look good.
That is what Rock Hunter is really about. Rita and Rock make a deal with each other and do favors for each other. Rita endorses products that Rock is trying to promote for his firm like perfume. Rock pretends to be Rita’s boyfriend and appear in public with her as a couple so she can be taken more seriously in Hollywood. This movie is also about people believing that they are obligated to be things that they don’t want to be and instead find ways to do things that they want to do instead.
This is not a great movie, but it is a very funny movie with a good message. That people don’t have to be the way that others be they should be and work in professions that others believe they should. That people can be themselves and do what makes them happy. And have to worry about their image so much. Tony Randall as usual in this movie is very funny and the same thing with Jayne Mansfield. Who is her usual adorable baby girl funny self, with all her funny and adorable mannerisms.

Neon Dreams: Video: Tony Rome 1967, Danger in Paradise

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Wow! Jill St. John, Gena Rowlands, Sue Lyon, I mean this movie is a freakin baby-face fest. Three hot sexy baby-face goddess’ in the same movie. This movie could’ve been, well garbage to keep it clean, but as long as Jill, Gena and Sue looked the way that they did and were as good as they were in the movie, I would’ve still watched and recorded and seen it over and over as much as I have already. But take the baby-face goddess’ out of this movie and you still have one hell of a detective moving involving pi’s and the police.

Tony Rome plays a former cop now turned private detective now living in Miami, who is somewhat of a underachiever and lazy as a detective. And when not working cases prefers to make his money the easy way. I mean the man lives on a boat that he won in a card game, for crying out loud. He’s a gambler and a bit of a hustler, but people around him respect him and know how good of a detective he is. And that’s how he gets his latest client, well really clients, the Klosterman’s.
This movie starts with Rome played by Frank Sinatra getting a call from Ralph Turpin his ex-partner played by Robert Wilkie, who is now the house detective at a Miami hotel. Turpin finds a young hot baby-face adorable women Diana Pines played by Sue Lyon. As drunk as Jim Morrison on a four-week binge lying dead asleep in bed. Turpin also discovers who she is by going through her identification. The daughter of the biggest real estate developer in South Florida Rudy Klosterman played by Simon Oakland. Turpin doesn’t want to drive Diana home and deal with Klosterman, because Turpin is a bit of a crook and doesn’t want any further trouble.
That is where Rome comes him because Turpin calls his ex-partner Rome down to the hotel to drive her home and not release the name of the hotel and gives him two-hundred bucks for it. Diana’s father is really upset and worried about his daughter and wants to know what is wrong with her. And hires Rome to find out. Turns out Diana is missing a diamond pin that is supposed to be worth a thousand-dollars or something, but the pin is really made of glass and worth twenty-bucks instead. Every person that Rome works for in this movie is somehow either involved in organized crime, or has friends who are.
Every time Rome gets close to something, someone dies and the evidence leads back to him. So he has both organized crime and Miami police after him. Because the mob lets say wants the pin that they believe is worth thousands of dollars, even though it is really worth a couple cheap lunches if that. But Rome keeps getting closer and keeps digging until he finally solves the case. If you like great writing, action, drama, gorgeous, baby-face adorable women and comedy, you’ll love Tony Rome because it has all of that plus a lot more.

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Stereo Oldie: Experiment in Terror in (1962)

Source:The New Democrat  

Experiment in Terror is one of the best action/thriller mystery/suspense movies that I’ve ever seen and perhaps is ahead of its time. At least as far as how the bad guy the terrorist in the movie was able to get so much intelligence on his potential victims. How he intimidated them and how he also used them. Ross Martin plays the terrorist in the movie and he’s not someone who blows up banks, airports, houses, what have you. But is someone who has a very simple and basic goal. Rob a bank to collect somewhere around hundred-thousand dollars, but only uses one employee to get him the money.

The terrorist uses Kelly Sherwood played by Lee Remick who is a bank teller at this San Francisco bank. And tells her, “you rob the bank for me and get me the money, or I’ll kill you and your sister”. He has so much information already on Kelly Sherwood and her sister Toby played by Stefanie Powers, before he puts this terrorist act into action. Kelly is young women working at the bank. Toby is still in high school and the terrorist knows all of this and even what high school Toby goes to.
The terrorist Red played by Ross Martin, tells Kelly that if she goes to the police or FBI, that he’ll kill her and her sister. He underestimates her and the amount of intelligence and courage that she has and she calls Red’s bluff, (no pun intended) goes to the FBI anyway behind his back so he doesn’t know about it, but he figures it out anyway, but doesn’t come through on his threat at least right away. So Kelly is playing along with Red and not really giving him anything, while the SF FBI led by John Ripley tracks down the terrorist. This is a great movie and I’ve seen it several times.

Helmer Reenberg: Video: The 1963 Meeting in Jack Ruby's Apartment

Source:The New Democrat

Apparently there was a meeting in Jack Ruby’s apartment in the Dallas area the day after the JFK assassination. And even if we do know who was at that meeting, we don’t know what that meeting was about. Only the people there know and at least one of them is dead, that being Jack Ruby. Here’s what we do know. Jack Ruby knew Lee Oswald prior to killing Oswald. Ruby not only had associates who did work for the Italian Mafia and perhaps other organized criminal gangs in Dallas. Oswald hated Jack Kennedy, the Mafia hated Jack Kennedy and Ruby was one of their associates and killed one of the men who knows most of it not the whole story surrounding the JFK assassination. Which leaves people including myself to speculate do we know everything about this assassination and how many people exactly were involved. Did Lee Oswald have help, or was he by himself.

The Alfred Hitchcock Hour: Hangover (1962) With Tony Randall & Jayne Mansfield

Source:The New Democrat

A chance to see Jayne Mansfield with short hair. Don’t worry, she’s still baby-face adorable and hot with short hair. Tony Randall plays a talented, but alcoholic advertiser who’s drinking has gone too far to the point that it costs him his job, which is a very good job and his wife. And as well as his memory where he doesn’t remember the night before. Where he gets kicked out of a bar, screws up his presentation at work for one of his clients and wife walks out on him. He also forgets about an affair he had with Marion played by Jayne Mansfield.

He actually shows up at work the next morning thinking everything is normal and that nothing incredible happened the night before. He doesn’t even remember being fired and is wondering what Marion is doing at his home the next morning. He shows up to work locked out of his office where they tell him again that he was fired. And essentially spends the rest of the day trying to figure out what happened the day before.
As Alfred Hitchcock said on this show himself, this was about showing people the dangers of alcoholism, which I’m even surprised that term was even around in the early 1960s. And would assume that people who were alcoholics were considered to be mentally weak and not people with disease that needed serious treatment. But alcoholism causes Hadley Purvis played by Tony Randall his job and his wife and he loses his temper and takes it out on Marion.

Friday, January 16, 2015

Moyers and Company: Video: Harvey J. Kaye: Fighting For The Four Freedoms

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Even though I think I know what the so-called progressive idea of freedom is today, I would like to hear it from them. And better yet someone who a true Progressive and not a Socialist or Social Democrat more on the Far-Left today, but someone more of a Lyndon Johnson Progressive. But if today’s Progressives idea of freedom is the four freedoms, then it is essentially freedom from individual responsibility and even individual freedom itself. Because big government will save us from having to take care of our own selves, because big government will do that for us.

I’m with Progressives on Freedom of Speech, just as long as we are talking about Freedom of Speech and not just speech that Progressives agree with and like. And everything they find insulting or they disagree with somehow is not legal. I believe in Freedom of Religion, even though I’m not religious myself. But part of that freedom is the ability not to practice religion at all. But as far as Freedom From Want, what’s wrong with wanting things that we’ve earned and setting for goals for us to achieve? Freedom From Fear, come on show me a perfect world and then we can talk about that.
Now how about my four freedoms and I might add one to that, because four sounds kind of light considering the fact that we live in a liberal democracy.
Again I’m there on speech and I would add assembly and religion to that. But guess what we already have the First Amendment.
Right to Privacy, check out the Fourth Amendment.
Freedom of Choice. You might be able to argue that we already have this in the Fourth Amendment as far as what we are ale to do in the privacy of our own homes and property, just as long as we aren’t hurting anyone with what we are doing. But how about when we are in public. And what do I mean by Freedom of Choice, which is sort of like asking someone what to they mean by clean air. But I’ll answer this anyway and Freedom of Choice is exactly that. The freedom for one meaning free adults to choose how they live their own lives. And that covers really everything from an economic and personal perspective. Again just as long as we aren’t hurting any innocent person with what we are doing.
Right to a Quality Education. If I was going to add two amendments to the U.S. Constitution, it would be Freedom of Choice and the Right to a Quality Education. You can’t live in freedom unless you have the knowledge and skills that allows for you to make the right decisions with your own life. And gives you the income that allows for you to take care of yourself. We have roughly depending on how you add it up not including people in jail or prison, fifty-million people or so in America who are not free, because they are currently locked in poverty. Which in a sense if a prison outside of a prison. Because you have to rely on others to take care of you.
We already have the First Amendment which covers speech, assembly and religion. We have the Fourth Amendment which covers privacy. The Fifth Amendment which covers our property rights and the Second Amendment which cover our Right to Self-Defense. Throw in choice and education and we would have all the freedom that we would need, assuming we take advantage of those rights to live freely in a liberal democracy. Not dependent on a welfare state or a corporation or a prison to take care of us for us. Because we have the freedom over our own lives and that is all that we would need.

Keith Hughes: What is a Libertarian?

Source:The New Democrat

Libertarians, I guess it depends on what you mean by a Libertarian. And if you asked my definition of a Libertarian, it will sound very similar to both my definition of a Conservative, in the classical sense and a Liberal in the classical sense where I am. So I’ll you give you my four examples of a Libertarian including a Liberal Libertarian and if you want to put me in that camp fine. But Gary Johnson would also be in that camp, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 2012, who certainly leans in that direction, but isn’t what I at least would call a Classical Libertarian.

I just gave you two types of Libertarians. The Liberal Libertarian, Gary Johnson. The Classical Libertarian, Ron Paul, I agree with Keith Hughes on that one. The Conservative Libertarian, Rand Paul who is a little to the Right of his father on national security and foreign policy and to his father’s left on economic policy. Senator Paul is more of a Federalist as it relates to social insurance the safety net. As opposed to his father who simply wants to eliminate the public safety net all together. And then there Anarcho Libertarians. People who are essentially anti-government all together. But don’t officially at least support eliminating all government.
So what do all these labels mean? Lets start with the Classical Libertarian, libertarianism in its realist sense and go from there. The Classical Libertarian is not just anti-big government all together where I am as a Classical Liberal lets say. But they are pro-small government and would essentially cut the Federal Government down to the size it was in the 1920s or so. And tell Americans to live their own lives as they see fit, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone with what they are doing. And if they get into any economic trouble and need assistance, go to their friends, family and private charity for assistance.
Now the Libertarian I actually respect and can talk to and learn from and are interested in and if I was in government I could probably work and personal know and like some of these people, are the Conservative Libertarians. Go back to the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s and you’ll find Barry Goldwater leading that camp. Go to whatever this current decade is called now and you’ll see Rand Paul leading this wing on the Right. People who are again anti-big government and believe in both personal and economic freedom, but aren’t looking to eliminate governmental functions they see as useful and constructive. The safety net comes to mind. But more interested in getting those programs out of the Federal Government and down to the states, locals and even privatization.
Now the Liberal Libertarian, Classical Liberal or even real Liberal, I just go by Liberal for myself. But we are in sync with the Conservative Libertarian and Classical Libertarian on freedom of choice and personal freedom issues. Don’t like big government running our economic or personal affairs for us. Don’t like the welfare state or nanny state. But we aren’t so much anti-government and look to put it down, as much as we are anti-big government. We believe in government, but we want it limited to so it works. And when it comes to helping the less-fortunate, we wants those programs to empower people as much if not more than taking care of them in the short-term so they can live in freedom as well.
The Anarcho Libertarian, think Anarchist and not much of a difference. Lew Rockwell, if you are familiar with his politics who on his blog it days pro-market, anti-state. Unless you are an Anarcho Libertarian, you get into a political discussion with them and you may think you are at a Star Trek convention, no offense to Trekies. But when it comes to Libertarians, they go from the center-right where Conservative Libertarians and even Conservatives are, all the way over to people who are essentially anti-government all together. So it depends on what you mean by Libertarian.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

CUNY-TV: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- Mario Cuomo on The Death Penalty and Other Issues: From October 12th, 2011

Source: CUNY-TV-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

At risk of insulting Mario Cuomo and making Bill O’Reilly look bigger than the rat that he really is, O’Reilly was once asked his position on the death penalty. And he answered that he was opposed to the death penalty because he didn’t believe it was a harsh enough punishment. And part of his opposition might be his Irish-Catholicism. O’Reilly’s alternative was essentially to make convicted murderers slaves and give them life sentences of hard labor.

I think Governor Cuomo’s alternative to the death penalty is even worst. Which would be solitary confinement for the rest of the lives. Which would be a form of cruel an unusual punishment, as well as unproductive. Because you would be putting people who probably aren’t mentally all together anyway and putting them in a situation where they would just get worst. And acting out end up becoming a problem for the prison staff that is supposed to supervise these inmates.
As far as people in poverty in America, the more money you have, the more influence you have. The idea of one person one vote, is a technicality and in places in Chicago, perhaps not even real where dead people apparently still have the right to vote there. So what kind of influence do you think a long-term low-skilled, perhaps not even with a high school diploma unemployed person is going to have. Or a low-skilled low-wage worker, perhaps making fifteen-thousand-dollars a year and collecting public assistance to make up for what they don’t earn, will have.
CUNY-TV: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- Mario Cuomo on The Death Penalty & Other Issues

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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