If I was robbed four times in a month as Woody Allen claimed, not that I was robbed, but that he was, hum? Gee I don’t know, how about moving! Just throwing a thought out there. Actually, after the second time I was robbed, I think I would have moved. Especially if I was in his situation, or was doing better. Nuevo York, a muy loco ciudad! New York, a very crazy city, for any English speakers who happen to see this. They go from way too much crime and a city of eight-million people in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, that can’t defend itself, even though it’s the economic center of the world, (where all those high tax dollars go) to a city in the 1990s where you could be arrested for even viewing porn. Perhaps even jaywalking, hailing for a cab with your middle finger.
If a city is too dangerous to go outside, it’s too dangerous to live there. I know, another strike of commonsense there. I guess people could work from home and order all of their food in. Have the dentist and barber come over, etc. But if that is what people are doing, then the people making all the deliveries are risking their lives by going outside everyday and going to other people’s homes in New York. And don’t forget, even if they get out of their homes and business’s safely, they might risk being kidnapped, or robbed at the place where they’re making their delivery. I’ve never understood how big wealthy cities haven’t been able to defend themselves. And gee I don’t know, invest a good deal of their resources into their law enforcement so the city can defend itself. But I guess that just comes from not being a New Yorker.
I'm personally not crazy about flying myself. But not because I'm worried about the plane crashing, but because I'm 6'5 and 220 pounds or so and even in economy plus, I'm generally not that comfortable on an airplane. And besides generally when I fly I'm going from the East Coast to the West Coast which is a six-hour trip going out West. This is going to sound horrible, but not liking flying is a hell of an excuse for not seeing my family out there. Because I can always say that is a long way to fly for just a few days, or even a week and then to fly back. As far as bathrooms, or food on the plane, I think I rather do those things in jail. Not that I want to do those things in jail, but if its a choice between one or the other, well maybe I would lean towards the plane. Because I know I'll getting out of there in hours, instead of years. And I won't be in jail, it will just feel like it.
As far as having more accidents in the bathroom than on a plane. Sure! For people who aren't potty-trained yet. Oh, you mean people slipping on wet floors and that kind of thing. Well maybe they're not bath, or shower-trained yet either. Seriously, how hard is it to keep all of the water to take a bath or a shower in the tub? We're humans, not horses. There's only so much water that a human needs (assuming they shower on a regular basis) in order to bath and shower themselves. And if water gets on the floor anyway, because I don't know you're just coming back from Africa, or perhaps someplace where showers are illegal, or water is not available, or maybe you weigh over three-hundred pounds, just waking up from a coma from watching a Jean-Claude Van-Damme movie marathon, or something and you need a lot of water to bathe yourself, here's a tip. Dry the floor before you get in the shower and use a mat to step on when you get out.
I like Chris Buckley’s line saying that it is unfair for satirists, because they are now in competition with USA Today. Applying that a lot of jokes come true, or as I would put it, get elected. We do now have a Congress that represents America. Not exactly the best of America, I hope now anyway. Or maybe I’ll join Alec Baldwin the next time he threatens, or is generous enough to leave America. USA Today, in the business of news and report serious issues. Satirists, are in the business to make fun of what’s going on and life in general. The problem for satirists is that USA Today and other news organizations now report on a lot of things that look like comedy. Like the government shutting down, because the House of Representatives can’t get the President to repeal his own signature legislation.
Sarah Palin, who I actually have a lot of respect for as a satirist, comedian and a beautiful women, even if someone who has just graduated from high school is more qualified to be either President, or Vice President of the United States, is the perfect example of satire, or a real-life comedy story. In Supreme Courtship, Chris Buckley, writes about a fictional character from Texas, a very attractive female judge who loves firearms and the Southwestern Texas lifestyle. Sarah Palin, who other than being from Alaska instead of Texas, has a lot in common with the fictional Texas judge. A very attractive women with a keen sense of humor, from rural Alaska, who loves the country lifestyle and is a big fan of guns, who has a great personality. But who is more qualified to be a fictional TV character than Vice President of the United States. And yet she’s nominated for Vice President by the candidate who comes within a few large states of winning the presidency.
As I’ve blogged before you can’t follow Washington politics and that is national politics and I’m sure Washington city politics as well, without a sense of humor. Unless you have a lot of money that you don’t know what to do with and decide to spend all that money on shrinks and vacations at mental institutions as a patient. Because you’re suffering from a severe case of depression. Because there’s so much nonsense (to be nice, bullshit to be accurate) that happens here that we all pay for.
U.S. Senators, who rather be president to the point that they their main job becomes running for president, instead of serving their people in Congress that the taxpayers have to pay for. A taxpayer-funded Defense Department that is so big that it can’t be audited. One f the funniest true stories of all-time. Taxpayer Congressional investigations that purely designed to hurt the leading presidential candidate from the other party. The largest entitlement programs in the world that are going broke if they’re not fixed. That no one in Congress has the balls to actually fixed, because that might mean that they have to go home and find a real job. That they’re a lot less qualified for.
But again the problem with satirists and people who write satiric books for a living about current affairs, is that it becomes harder to find new stories to write about even if you think you have something that is really funny. Because chances are that story is actually true, or something very similar to that has already happened. Tobacco companies have said under oath that tobacco is not addicted. Which was the story in Chris Buckley’s Thank You For Smoking.
We actually do have a Congress that makes con man, used car salesman, personal injury attorney’s, gold diggers, look popular. As well as the nerd in class whose hand is always up to not only answer every question, but answers the questions that the teacher puts to other students and then wonders why they never have any money for lunch, or are always getting kicked in the butt, because their lunch money is always stolen and they’re wearing a kick men sign on their butt.
The thing about Washington and American government is that jokes are not just funny, but they get elected and a lot funny made for Hollywood stories actually come true. You would go nuts and became Michelle Bachmann’s roommate at a mental institution if you couldn’t laugh about it. But that is democracy for you and as the great political satirist George Carlin said, “politicians are a reflection of the people.” They’re not God, or aliens from another planet, or even robots. (Even if they look and act like them for their lobbyists) And they represent the best and worst of us.
John F. Kennedy, is my number one political hero, but as great as a politician as he was and in many ways a great man, he never becomes President of the United States if the media back then bothered to report on the personal lives of politicians. Only tabloids did that and as most people know tabloids aren’t taken seriously especially when it comes to politicians. At least by intelligent people. Because Jack Kennedy, is simply one of the most irresponsible politicians we’ve ever had at least as far as how he lived his personal life. He had personal and even friendly relationships with gangsters and friends of gangsters. And even had an affair as a married man with the girlfriend of a gangster in Judy Campbell. The girlfriend of Italian gangster Sam Giacana.
Marilyn Monroe, is an example of the recklessness of Jack Kennedy. Not that Marilyn was a bad person, because the opposite is true there, but she was a very immature baby-faced adorable women, whose personality and maturity didn’t seem much older. Who was mentally unstable and had Hollywood fantasies that Jack would divorce his wife Jackie and that Marilyn would become next First Lady of the United States. All Jack wanted from Marilyn was her body, sex and a good time. Which might sound really rude, if not crude, but he never saw Marilyn as long-term romance material and not marriage material. But to be completely honest, I don’t believe he ever saw any women as marriage material. In the sense he would settle down with her and give up all of his affairs.
Jack, officially broke it off with Marilyn in 1962 and of course didn’t have the decency and wasn’t man enough to personally tell her that himself. And had his brother and most trusted aid Bobby do that for him. But that is as far as it goes with how Marilyn was after she got the news and how they effected her. There’s no real evidence if any evidence, of anyone being in the house other than Marilyn and her housekeeper the night that she died at home. The most loyal of Marilyn fans will never except that a women this sexy, beautiful and adorable, with the great personality, sense of humor, talent and everything else, and entertainer who was headed to Hollywood Hall of Fame has she lived in normal live in years, that she killed herself. Accidentally, or otherwise and that is why these conspiracy theories that someone murdered her exist.
I agree with Professor Dan Russell on a couple things here. The only people we actually own are ourselves and that property rights extend to ourselves and our bodies. For example, we as adults can have sex with anyone we choose, as long as they are adults and they consent to it. But we don't have a right to rape people and no one has a right to rape us. I'm not pro-choice on practically everything because I'm a big fan of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, pornography, gambling, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, abortion, etc, because I'm a big fan of all of those activities. The opposite is true, I just don't believe that just because I don't personally approve of them that others shouldn't have the same freedom of choice as I have to make those decisions for themselves.
Freedom of choice, is not freedom of force. It just means we have the right to make our own personal choices as long as we aren't hurting any innocent person with what we're doing. And then we are personally responsible for the choices that we make. Now where government can come in is to put out all of the best available information about all of these activities for free people can make the best personal decisions for themselves as possible. And not bail people out when people are personally irresponsible with their own lives and force responsible people to pay for the bad decisions of irresponsible people. Freedom of choice, is not just right for people to say yes when it comes to activities and deciding to do things. It is the right for people to make their own decisions. Yes or no and then they're responsible for their own decisions.
We know who killed Marilyn Monroe. Well that is everyone familiar with the story and this incredible for good and bad Hollywood Goddess and her life and how she lived, who is not a current resident at a mental hospital, an escaped mental patient whose on the lam, as well as anyone capable of understanding commonsense and real evidence that is right in front of them that even a blind person could see. Marilyn, not intentionally, but again that is the question here whether this was suicide, or an accidental death like someone driving off a cliff after losing control of the car. Because she was both a very irresponsible women, who had real mental issues and not always in complete control of what she was doing. Who for whatever reasons could never understand everything that she had going for her.
“A depressed Marilyn Monroe who committed suicide.” That is the only question here. Did she kill herself intentionally, or accidentally. A depressed women who one hot night in Los Angeles decides that life is hell and she can’t take it anymore and takes enough pills to kill three people. Well, that is more believable than U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy coming by one night and killing her so the affair she had with his brother President Jack Kennedy, doesn’t get out. But again we’re talking about an unstable women who drank too much, who perhaps could have given Jim Morrison a run for his money when it came to drinking alcohol in one night. Who took a lot of pills as well to make herself feel better and numb her reality which she thought was hell. But would have been paradise for perhaps 9-10 other Americans. Which again goes to her mental unbalance.
I believe the only solid theory to how Marilyn Monroe died was that she accidentally killed herself from a drug overdose. A bad combination of alcohol and sleeping pills. Remember, a mentally unbalanced women who drank a lot and probably drank herself to sleep on a regular basis, especially since her career was basically on hold now, because he was becoming even more unprofessional at work and getting fired from movie roles. Who also took sleeping pills every night to numb herself along with the alcohol. That is the only believable theory here, because no one has offered any evidence that someone else killed her. And has no evidence of anyone else being there and who that person could have possibly be. She wasn’t alone that night, because her housekeeper was asleep down the hall. Had someone broke in to kill Marilyn, the housekeeper would have known about it. Which is why the second killer theory simply doesn’t hold. Along with no evidence of anyone else being there.
I think its clear why so-called feminists and the broader New-Left in America hate American football. It masculine, its tough, it’s a sport for men, designed for TV, like in the real-world there are winners and losers. They probably even see the sport as sexist, because its such a manly straight-man’s game. (If you will) And yet there’s a quality about American football that the New-Left and Socialists tend to be fans of. Football is about as collectivist of a sport as you can imagine. Maybe only soccer is more collectivist, because football is all about teamwork.
To run the ball, the center has to correctly snap the ball to the quarterback. The quarterback has to correctly take the ball from center and then correctly hand the ball off to the tailback, or fullback and perhaps fake the handoff to the fullback and give it to the tailback. The runner, has to take the ball and hit the correct hole and run hard. The offensive line, has to create the hole for the runner. All of these things are basic fundamental procedures. But if you watch American football on a regular basis, these basic steps are screwed up on a regular basis. The QB is not ready for the snap, the center snaps it too soon, or doesn’t snap it at all, because he thinks the snap count is higher. The QB hands off the ball to a runner who is not there. The runner drops the handoff. An offensive lineman, false starts, etc.
Football, is not boxing. You can’t play well if you’re teammates around do also don’t their jobs. Every player in the came is dependent on everyone else to do their job. You can have the greatest QB and receivers in the league. But if your offensive line can’t pass protect, your receivers will never see the ball. At least downfield, because your QB will usually be on the ground before he can get rid of the ball. And that is just the offense, which I’m probably more familiar with as a fan. But good luck to your linebackers making tackles for loss and at the line of scrimmage, if your defensive line is consistently getting blocked downfield, with you left to clean up the mess. You want a pass rush from your DL, your corners and safeties need to cover the receivers for more than a couple of seconds so your DL can get up the field and hit the quarterback.
You want could pass coverage on defense, you need a consistent pass rush so your secondary is not left to cover good speedy receivers 5-6 seconds per pass play. They need to get to the quarterback in 2-3. Don’t have to sack him every play, but get the QB to throw the ball quicker than he wants to. Hit him as he’s throwing the ball, or right after it. Make him try to scramble. And for a pass rusher to be effective like a defensive end, defensive tackle rush linebacker, they need the pass rushers on the other side to do their jobs as well. So they’re not always doubled and triple-teamed. You’re not going to find a more collectivist and perhaps even socialist sport than American football. I bet Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is a football fan. The question is, does he follow the New York Giants, or New England Patriots, because he’s lived in both places. But you would have to ask Senator Sanders that.
American football, is violent, its rugged, its gritty, comes with a lot of risks and people do get hurt from it and comes with a lot of costs. But it’s about as American of an activity as we have. And a reason why Americans love America and being American. But there’s a big reason the Super Bowl is always the highest rated sporting event in the world every year. Because millions of people outside of America watch the game and even come here to see it. People from collectivist social democracies, who tend to claim that they don’t like a lot of what America stands for. And don’t like a lot of the qualities and characteristics about American football. And yet they come to our country, emigrate to our country watch our sports, including football. Because its such an exciting game where you can’t be successful at it without collectivism and teamwork.
Source:Commentary Magazine- The Donald somewhere on Planet Earth, at least physically.
"For Republicans with even a passing attachment to the principles of conservatism, as opposed to merely the personalities who count themselves among the movement’s members, the fatalistic refrain so often repeated over the course of 2015 has been that “nothing matters.”
The latest Republican of dubious loyalty to be thrown into the stockades by the movement’s purity police is soon-to-be Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. The Wisconsin representative and former GOP vice presidential nominee has done more to advance conservative principles and a Republican agenda in the age of Obama (and has taken innumerable arrows for it) than virtually any other elected official. For the alleged heresies of preventing a financial meltdown in 2008 with his TARP vote and for supporting comprehensive immigration reform, Ryan has been branded a “RINO.” This is unhinged in the most literal sense. It is an opinion divorced from reality and lent legitimacy only by the critical mass of angry Republicans who have also succumbed to this mania."
Donald Trump reminds me of a used car salesman who tells a potential customer that he has a great deal on a 1978 Ford Pinto, of Chevy Chevette, as if there’s such a thing as a great deal on a Pinto, or Chevette. Maybe the salesman is drunk, or high, or something, but anyway he says he has this great deal on this car and as he’s showing the car the doors falls off as he tries to open the door. And tries to explain by saying that: “Oh yeah, this car has flexible doors. So you can take them off if you want more air in the car when you’re driving.” He sees this customer isn’t as smart as a pile of bricks and that they’ll buy anything he tries to sell them.
Well, Donald Trump sees average Americans voters as used car customers who can't afford anything else to drive and are desperate for a pair of wheels (even if they fall off as soon as they start rolling) at least Republican voters and that is only assuming he actually cares, that he’s not running for president simply because ego and publicity is drug to him that he if he doesn’t get his body goes into shock.
Trump looks at Republicans voters as marketing opportunity. As a market to sell himself and he’ll anyone anything they want to hear to get their support. The man makes Mitt Romney look like a man of hard rock never bending principles. Mitt Romney, was the king of flip-flops at least in 2011-12 and I personally called him Flip Flopper and changed his name for him with consulting him about it. But compared to The Donald, Mitt looks like Barry Goldwater. A man who was rock solid when it came to his conservatives principles.
The Donald, truly isn’t a politician simply, because he unelectable. He’s suffering from the worst form of political whiplash, because how many times he’s officially changed his mind when its come to abortion and other key issues in the country.
Donald Trump, will never be President of the United States. I don’t believe any intelligent person about American politics believes he has a snowflake’s chance in Los Angeles of ever winning the presidency even if Republican voters are taking him seriously. Because of what he’s said about immigrants, especially Latinos, women, that new political maps have been made to cover all of his changing positions on the issues. But I think he actually knows that and is essentially running for president for the fun of it. Perhaps trying out for a new movie where he plays himself running for president, or something. Donald Trump For President, makes the GOP presidential debates look like the worst prim-time TV programs since reality TV was officially created in the late 1990s. And until the GOP wakes up the country will stuck having to see him.
You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.
I haven’t thought about this, until I just read it, but if you’re familiar with the great Lana Turner, (as an actress and goddess) and you’re familiar with Where Love Has Gone from 1964, the story about Valerie Hayden’s daughter Danielle Miller (played by Joey Heatherton) who ends up killing her mother’s boyfriend, is very similar to Lana’s daughter Cheryl Krane, who ends up killing her mother’s boyfriend Johnny Stompanato. The Stompanato killing, happened in real-life and both killings happened when the killer’s mother is involved in a dispute with their boyfriend. I’m not an expert on Lana Turner, most of what I’ve learned about her has been in the last two years. But she lived a crazy life as if she was always drunk or something and didn’t know what the hell she was doing. Valerie Hayden, (played by the great Susan Hayward) lives a similar life as Lana in this movie.
As far as this movie. Great movie! It is very dramatic, if not traumatic when you’re talking about a family that is led by a very overprotective mother, (played by Bette Davis) who is always making moves regarding her daughter’s life and makes those moves on her behalf and rarely if ever consults her daughter about what she’s doing for her. And as a result her daughter even though she’s this gorgeous, baby-faced adorable, sexy, intelligent, talented women, ends up being somewhat immature and irresponsible. Because her mother has a lot of control over her own life. She meets World War II U.S. Army hero Luke Miller played by Mike Connors and falls in love with and perhaps hoping she can find some independence from her mother. They get married, but now Mrs. Hayden, (played by Bette Davis) wants to control her daughter and her new son-in law. And has him blacklisted so he has no other choice, but to work for her company.
Again, this is a very dramatic if not traumatic movie and yet its pretty funny as well. And maybe that just because of Susan Hayward, who had this Liz Taylor quality of being able to combine drama, with comedy and humor. Who plays a very adorable and immature irresponsible women, who goes too far, because now she’s married to man who has just gotten out of the U.S. Army and fought in World War II. Whose use to giving orders, not taking them. Who doesn’t have any patience for the games and soap opera tactics of her wife and mother in law. This was never a relationship that was designed to work out. The Miller’s, get divorced, Luke is out of the picture and has no input with how his daughter is raised and Valerie (played by Susan Hayward) finds a new man before she dumps her husband and that is how her boyfriend gets killed. Because she has a fight with him with her daughter stepping in to end the fight and kills her mother’s boyfriend.
I think Where Love Has Gone, is also a very entertaining and funny movie, especially if you’re familiar with life of Lana Turner, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. Gorgeous, adorable, talented and yet immature and irresponsible women. Whose always involved with the wrong man while having young daughter to take care of. In Lana’s case, Italian gangster Johnny Stompanato. Valerie, gets involved with a man after Luke Miller, who isn’t a good man and he ends up being killed by her daughter. Luke Miller, by most accounts is a good man, but he only gets back in his daughter’s life after she’s charged with her murder of her mother’s boyfriend. This movie looks like a great soap opera. With a lot of great drama, writing, acting and humor, which all great soap operas have and I’m a big fan of it.
I always found it interesting about Jim Garrison and why would a New Orleans District Attorney be investigating the assassination of a U.S. President who was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Which is about a thousand miles or so from New Orleans. And spend ten years of New Orleans taxpayer dollars on this investigation an investigation that was under the jurisdiction of the Dallas PD and the FBI. And I don't believe Oliver Stone's JFK movie from 1991 which I've seen several times, has ever made that clear. If you want to know why Oliver Stone is such a conspiracy theorist, is because of serious people like Jim Garrison who come up with these incredible theories. Maybe its just me, but you would think a big city District Attorney like Jim Garrison would have enough crime cases of his own to investigate.
The only conspiracy theory that I believe is worth considering, that any serious person with respect on these issues, someone like Robert Blakey, who was the Chief Counsel of the House Assassinations Committee in the late 1970s that looked into the JFK assassination, is the theory involving organized crime. Especially the Italian Mafia in America in Dallas and Chicago in particular. They clearly wanted President John Kennedy killed and would have had the access and power to pull it off. And Lee Harvey Oswald, who wasn't interested in his own personal safety and freedom, would have been the perfect assassin for them. Not saying that the Italian Mafia did have Kennedy assassinated, but they could've done it if they wanted to pull it off. And the Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald connections, I believe give this theory credibility.
I think its obvious that Lee Oswald was the assassin who killed President Kennedy. It was his gun, he worked at the Dallas Book Depository, he had the means, motive, access, he could pull this off and was a good enough shooter to do it. The only question here is did anyone put him up to it. Was this a one-man operation, or were there others involved. Like members of Chicago or Dallas organized crime. Jack Kennedy, had plenty of enemies on the Far-Right in Dallas and perhaps Texas as a whole. The Far-Left especially Communists like Lee Oswald, hated him as well. The Italian Mafia hated Kennedy, because his administration was serious about putting them out of business. After the Mafia helped Kennedy get elected president especially in Chicago in 1960. With all of these factors its hard to believe that one little loser could have pulled off this assassination by himself. Which is how these conspiracy theories come about.
I think Martin O’Malley is finally getting it as a presidential campaigner. “The Progressive with results”, to paraphrase Hillary Clinton from the Democratic debate a couple of weeks ago. The difference between Governor O’Malley and Secretary Clinton, has been impact. And a record of accomplishments on the key issues that Liberal and Progressive Democrats care about and a lot of other Americans. But it’s really Senator Clinton, because it’s as Senator Clinton that Hillary Clinton has had the biggest impact in her career on all the issues. Secretary of State, is a huge job, but its a national security job primarily and you’re not that involved in issues outside of foreign policy and national security for the most part. Hillary Clinton, can say she’s fought the good fight and fought hard on these issues when she was in Congress. But Governor O’Malley can say he won those fights in Maryland as Governor. The difference between an executive and a legislature.
Executives, have to govern, they have no choice. Your state doesn’t pass an annual budget, your agencies run out of money and as a result have to suspend business. Because there’s no money coming in and they can’t afford to pile up debt and deficits, because there’s a hard limit to what they can borrow, because they don’t have their own currency. But when you’re a legislature especially in Congress, a Representative, or in Hillary’s case a Senator can say, “we fought the good fight on this issue and almost had the votes to get it passed in this Congress. We’ll come back in the next session, or next Congress and get it done, especially if more of us are elected to Congress.” A governor, doesn’t have that luxury. They have to pass a budget, they have to make sure that roads get built, schools and colleges are funded, law enforcement officers are on the street, well-equipped and so-forth. Governor O’Malley as a record of accomplishing things into law that Democrats say they support.
Of the three remaining Democrats for president, only Martin O’Malley can say he got a same-sex marriage law passed, decriminalized marijuana, had the best public schools in the country for five years, got a minimum wage law passed, passed middle class tax cuts, increased investment in public infrastructure, kept the cost of college down. All of these accomplishments in a very high cost of living state and doing it during the Great Recession and the slow recovery from it. Senator Bernie Sanders, can say he supports all of these causes and I’m sure he does and Hillary, I guess can now say she does to, because her polling is telling her that, (ha, ha) but only the Governor, because Martin was a Governor and a damn good one and was a Progressive with real results. Who just didn’t talk the good game and fought hard, but actually won a lot of those battles and had real victories there.
Perhaps Martin’s campaign theme, should be, “The Progressive Governor With Real Results.” And run on someone who actually broke gridlock. And tell voters that all the issues you’ve cared about he just doesn’t care about them, or has shown up to the dance late on them. But he’s actually come through and won a lot of those battles already. Again, minimum wage, same-sex marriage, marijuana decriminalization, lowered crime and increased put more police on the street. Who thought Baltimore would actually be livable 10-15 years ago and now its a big thriving growing city with all sorts of new white-collar business’s coming there. Including a brand new casino that has kept millions of tax dollars in Baltimore and Maryland, instead of going to Delaware, New Jersey, or West Virginia. All of this progress that true Progressives believe in happened under Martin O’Malley. Not Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders. And that is what the Governor should be telling Democrats. He’s a Democrat whose accomplished progressive goals and brought progress to millions of Americans.
Looks like the parents for the House Republicans finally came home from their long extended vacation and took control over their house and children. But if I had kids like the House Republicans, especially the Tea Party Caucus, I might leave them at home and not come back myself. The adults are finally in the room and in charge in the House Republican Caucus. Speaker John Boehner, has nothing else to lose at this point and decided to make a deal with President Obama and the Senate. And avoid another political suicidal government shutdown.
Which is too bad for a lot of bloggers and pundits, and comedians including myself, who were looking forward to covering government shutdown rallies in Washington in November. With Teddy Cruz, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, the House Tea Party Caucus, etc, waving signs saying, “so more government until Obama surrenders!” Or perhaps, “goes back to Africa!” But what’s good for the country is not always what’s good is not what’s good for comedians. Comedians, make a living making fun of bad situations and people being stupid, including stupid people. But the problem with stupidity and idiots is that they tend to have victims.
At risk of sounding serious and intelligent here, (perhaps not that big of a risk) the American economy just when it looks like it’s about to take off again especially with holiday season approaching right after Halloween, needs certainty. They need to know that the leaders is Washington can tie their shoes without tying them together accidentally and tripping as soon as they stand up. Every time we go through a potential default, or a government shutdown the markets and Wall Street take a beating. And it tends to cost us economic growth and hurt the job picture as well as well as the deficit going up as a result. With the government shutdown being avoided, because House Republicans finally learned how to tie their own two shoes, the economy can breathe easy and things can look normal again.
Chris Hitchens, seemed to hate Bill Clinton so much that he almost loved the man. His hatred of Billy Jeff, reminds me of the pastor and activist on the Christian-Right who claims how evil and dangerous homosexuality is, it comes out that he’s gay himself. And has had relationships with adolescent boys. The strongest opponents of homosexuality in several cases have been closeted gays. I guess the thinking that if they act all butch and are strongly against homosexuality in public, no one will ever know they actually speak with a high voice and cheat on their third wives with men. Without Bill Clinton, what would Hitchens have to write about in the 1990s? Wait, Tony Blair and New Labour coming to power in Britain? He might hate Tony Blair more than Bill Clinton actually, if that’s possible.
Keep in mind, Chris Hitchens was a Democratic Socialist. Bill Clinton, New Democrat, who moved the Democratic Party from this malaise of Utopians who were never happy about anything except when new news got worst and more people were suffering and they could make a case for more big government. So that I think is the main beef that Hitchens had with Billy Jeff. To the point that he calls the man a rapist without much if any evidence to back up that charge. Billy Jeff, if he wasn’t a busy and important man and had better things to do other than concern himself with Chris Hitchens, could have sued him for libel and probably have a hell of a case. Hitchens reminds me a little of the Republican political strategist/JFK assassination conspiracy theorist Roger Stone. Who officially will never support the Warren Report, even though he’s probably smart enough to. (Jury is still out) And has written books arguing that Vice President Lyndon Johnson had President Kennedy killed.
I’m surprised that Oliver Stone hasn’t picked up on one of Chris Hitchens’s conspiracy theories. And made a movie or documentary about one of them. There certainly enough dumb people and escaped mental patients, or people who should be committed, that would see that film for the movie to make money. Maybe Oliver Stone and Bill Clinton are friends, or Stone at least is an admirer of Clinton. Perhaps a contributor to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign or a member of her husband’s Foundation’s board. But that is where Hitchens was at least in the 1990s and early 2000s before he became a Neoconservative who wanted Islam destroyed or something. And jumped into President Bush’s back pocket (no more room in the front pockets) and became a cheerleader for the so-called War on Terror and the Iraq War. When Hitchens was focused on something, he wouldn’t let it ago. Until he found something else to bury himself in.
"Liberty 101: What Does Liberty Really Mean?" by the Institute for Humane Studies. Prof. Peter Jaworski says that libertarians focus on political liberty over other types of liberty. What does he mean by “political liberty”? Why is this the priority?"
From Wikipedia- "Liberty in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism. In politics liberty consists of the political social and political freedoms enjoyed by all citizens."
The first time I've actually seen that on Wikipedia, but that is pretty close to the liberal definition of liberty. The ability for one to have self-determination over them self. To chart their own course in life and make their own decisions about themselves. It means the freedom for people to be themselves short of hurting innocent people with their freedom. And then being held personally responsible for their own decisions for good and bad.
The liberal definition of liberty covers both economic and social policy. Someone can run their own company essentially anyway they want to, short of hurting their own employees and customers. Again, we're talking about liberty from a liberal, not libertarian vantage point. When it comes to social policy, liberty is the ability for one to make their own decisions over their own personal affairs, short of hurting innocent people intentionally, or otherwise.
Again, we're talking about liberty in a liberal society, a free society, where people have the right to self-govern. But we don't have the right to hurt people unless in self-defense. But liberty is too expensive if it doesn't involve both personal responsibility and rule of law. And without rule of law, liberty becomes anarchism.
The extreme version of liberalism is not socialism, or Marxism. People who believe socialism and Marxism, are the extreme versions of liberalism, don't understand liberalism. The extreme version liberalism is anarcho-libertarianism and anarchism. Where people can essentially do whatever they want, because there aren't any consequences that come with their decisions. Short of someone getting back at you for robbing them, or assaulting them, or whatever the case. So a Liberal believes in both liberty and rule of law. They go together like meet and potatoes, cheese and bread, whatever combination you want to come up with.
Name the social issue including gambling and prostitution which are also social issues, I'm probably pro-choice on it as a Liberal. Just as long as it comes to rule of law including a regulatory state. Not to run the enterprise or activity, but to protect consumers and employees from predators. And it doesn't involve legalizing predatory behavior. Like murder, rape, assault, theft, etc.
Liberty, is the ability one to live their own life short of hurting an innocent person with how they live. Not the liberty to hurt innocent people intentionally, or otherwise.
Conservatives and Libertarians, at least in the classical sense, have a similar definition of liberty as I do. Social Democrats, Socialists, Communists, not such big fans of freedom of choice, even with responsibility. And have more of a collective government-centric idea of liberty. But one of the great things about living in a federalist liberal democracy, is we get to make these decisions for ourselves.
You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.
I remember the NFL’s St. Louis Cardinals pretty well, because I started watching football in the early and mid 1980s and even though the Cardinals are from St. Louis, they played in the NFC East with the Redskins. So I got to see the Cardinals twice a year for about six seasons. And I always remember them playing the Redskins very tough even though the Redskins were always better. The Redskins won two Super Bowls and won three NFC championships and the Cardinals made one playoff appearance, but they had three winning seasons. They were a very talented group that would win 8-9 games and barely miss the except 1982 under head coach Jim Hanifan. And I guess that is why I’m interested in a team that only made one playoff appearance in the 1980s.
The 1980s Cardinals, probably should have won more. They had an All-Pro quarterback in Neil Lomax. Who if his career wasn’t cut short due to injury is probably in the Hall of Fame today. If you look at their backfield they had OJ Anderson, who perhaps should be in the Hall of Fame today. Definitely one of the best tailbacks of the 1980s. Who had great size and power at 6’2 225 pounds, but was also fast and could run away from you. Very similar to OJ Simpson, Jim Brown, or Eric Dickerson. And they had Stump Mitchell behind OJ. Who was a great runner and receiver, similar to Joe Washington. And Neil Lomax had receivers Roy Green, Mel Gray and later JT Smith and tight end Pat Tilley. And a good offensive line with Hall of Famer Dan Dierdorf, Louis Sharpe and Joe Bostic. This was a team that had a lot of talent on offense and had good players on defense. Like defensive Freddie Joe Nunn and linebacker EJ Junior.
The 1980s St. Louis Cardinals, were very good and contended a lot, but they had a habit of putting scares into good winning teams that won consistently, but not enough to actually win the game. They would upset a very good team and then lose to a bad team. They either gave up on Jim Hanifan too soon, or replaced him with the wrong head coach in Gene Stallings. I think pretender is the best way to describe the Cardinals of this era. Seemed like every season they looked like they were good enough to win and would get back to the NFC Playoffs and maybe even win the NFC East. But they wouldn’t close the door and would lose at the last-minute. Make a key mistake when they couldn’t afford it. But similar to the New Orleans Saints pre-Jim Mora they were a fun team to watch. But only better than the Saints.
When I saw this post on The Real Strategy a blog I’ll admit I’m not that familiar with, it got me thinking about the title of a book from the great political humorist P.J. O’Rourke. Where he says, “don’t vote. It just encourages the bastards.” Which came out in 2009-10. What O’Rourke is implying there if not just flat-out saying is that when you vote for politicians, or their opponents, you’re endorsing them and what they do. When the fact is the problem is what American politicians do for us and in too many cases do for us. By making our lives more difficult by doing too much, or not what they’re constitutionally required to by law, which is to pass the budget that funds the government.
As a Democrat, I’m a big fan of democracy short of empowering the majority to rule over the minority. Big reason why I’m a Liberal Democrat and not a Social Democrat, which is more common in Europe. But the main problem with American politics is not our politicians and I mean our crooked and bought hyper-partisan politicians. The main problem with American politics are the voters who vote for those politicians. People say especially with the Left where I’m proud to be (Center-Left that is) that if we just have higher turnout we would get better politicians and people more representative of who they’re supposed to represent. The problem with that is again if you have more people voting, you’re going to have at least with the current state of the American voter, you’ll have more dumb people voting for people who they don’t know. Getting sucked in by an oil-slick politician or candidate. Who has no intention of doing what they campaigned on.
You can pass all the great campaign reform laws that you want, but if you still have the same dumb voters who are either too dumb to vote for the people who’ll best represent them and vote for the worst alternative possible instead, or don’t bother to research candidates and politicians they’re considering voting for and just go off of soundbites, or the person whose most up to date with pop culture references, or technology, or campaign commercials, or they think one candidate is not as bad as the other person, so for that very and only reason the lesser evil deserves their vote over the really evil person, we’re always going to have an American public complaining about how bad our political system and government is. Even though they are responsible for creating that very government and system themselves.
We don’t need more voters. We need better voters. We need people who actually take voting seriously and take it as seriously as they would when their buying a home, a car, deciding where to send their kid to college and everything else they value, their i-pad, or i-pod, what so-called reality TV show to watch, etc. And with a more educated public when it comes to voting, you’ll see better politicians and better government and with that you’ll not just to see more voters, but more educated voters. With politicians having fewer dopes they can rely on who’ll buy beach out in Cincinnati if you tell them that you have one there for sale simply because you told them that. And since they failed geography and social studies in high school, aren’t even aware that Cincinnati is nowhere near and ocean. And probably couldn’t even find it on a map if they were standing there.
The NFC East division is the best division in the NFL, because every team hates everyone else. Maybe only the AFC North can say that about their division. You got Giants-Eagles, Redskins-Cowboys, Redskins-Giants, Eagles-Cowboys, these are all great rivalries. The Redskins-Eagles rivalry has been very good over the years especially the last thirty years or so. But the Giants-Cowboys even though it is a rivalry and both teams respect and get up for each other, might be the last rivalry in the NFC East. Both teams are separated by about 2000 miles. Other than this century both teams haven't been good at the same time for the most part. The Cowboys were great in the 1970s, the Giants perhaps the worst franchise of the 1970s. The Giants were good in the mid and late 1980s as the Cowboys were in decline. The Cowboys were the team of the 1990s, while the Giants were struggling to make the NFC Playoffs for the most part.
The Giants, might have a bigger rivalry with the Chicago Bears and San Francisco 49ers over the years, if you look at all the great games they've had with both franchises. Especially the 49ers which goes back to 1981 and where they seemed to be playing each other on Monday Night Football every year in the 1980s, or in the playoffs. As you see in this video most of the great games that the Giants and Cowboys have played against each other has been in the last 5-10 years or so. So you might be able to say that the Giants-Cowboys rivalry has been great during this period, or is one of the best rivalries in the NFL right now. Similar to the Ravens and Pittsburgh Steelers, or the Ravens and Cincinnati Bengals. But historically the Giants main rivals have been the Eagles and Redskins and then after that the 49ers and Bears, as far as the big games that they've played. With the Cowboys it has been the Redskins and Eagles and then the 49ers as well.
To me at least great NFL rivalries are historic. They survive through the years with people being able to say, "remember that great game against them thirty years ago when we beat them for the division? Reminds me of that game last year when they beat us for the division." Just because a rivalry is hot, or sexy, or however you want to phrase it, doesn't make it a great rivalry if no one cares about it 3-5 years from now. Because both teams have moved on, or perhaps are struggling now, or just one team is struggling with other getting the better of their games. And yes since both the Cowboys and Giants have been regular playoff contenders the last ten years or so and generally have both been in the NFC East race, they've played a lot of big games against each other and have done that in prime-time. But that doesn't put it in the same class as the Redskins-Cowboys, Giants-Eagles, Redskins-Giants, who go back forever against each other and have played a lot of great games against each other going back fifty-years. The Cowboys first big rival was the Redskins. Then the Eagles and then the Giants.
The only thing that I disagree with Sam Harris and his critique about Islam that I’ve seen from him and I’ve only been following his blog for about a year now, “is that the problem with the free speech debate about Islam, are Liberals.” Who invented free speech? Liberals! You want to give me the classic vs modern liberal argument all you want. But the fact is Liberals gave us our free speech. Not God, not Conservatives, or anyone else, but Liberals. You can’t be a Liberal if you don’t believe in free speech. It would be like being a pro-drug war, pro-preemptive war, anti-capitalist Libertarian. Liberals, are not the problem in the free speech debate about Islam and religion in general. The problem are leftist political correctness warriors, whether you want to call them Progressives, Socialists, New Marxists. But people who believe minorities should be excluded from criticism.
Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, especially in the First Amendment does it give any class or group of Americans the right not to criticized. Actually, the opposite is true since we all have the right to say whatever we want to about everyone else, short of libeling and threatening people, or inciting violence. This comes from our liberal Freedom of Speech. The constitutional right for Americans to freely express themselves. If you believe in political correctness, you believe in free speech for yourself and your faction. Just not for the opposition. So when a member from your team expresses them self in a way that offends the other side. That is free speech from your point of view. But if the other side says something offensive about a group you care about, well that’s hate speech that must be shut down. According to a political correctness fascist. Which is what we’re talking about here. Free speech, where Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives are. Versus fascists on the Far-Left and Far-Right.
Do you believe in free speech, or not? If you do, I’ll suggest you are a Liberal. Especially if you believe free speech covers speech that may offend you, or you disagree with. If you believe in political correctness, or what I call at least collective speech, you’re not a Liberal. You’re probably someone who says it’s perfectly okay to critique Christian-Conservatives when they bash gays, women and Muslims. Because the person is probably correct and besides you’re just expressing your freedom of speech. But if you make similar criticisms about Muslims, or people from Eastern religion’s who take the same positions against Muslims, you’re a racist, or some other type of bigot. Even though of course Islam is not race. Which hopefully Ben Affleck has figured out by now, but you might have to ask him that.
As someone who loves the Redskins and hates the New York Giants and if your'e familiar with that rivalry you know why, I have a lot of respect for the 1986 Giants. They're still one of the top 5-10 Super Bowl champions of all-time, but that is not why. They just represent exactly what NFL football should be. "We're coming after you. Try to stop us." It wasn't this made for reality TV, or Hollywood nonsense where everything is perfectly designed like you're trying to put a Broadway play together. With all sorts of sophisticated offenses and defenses. Actually, just sophisticated offense. If Roger Goodell had his way, tackling might become illegal in the NFL today. The 86 Giants, represent the opposite of New School football. And they're one of the best Old School NFL teams of all-time.
The 86 Giants, were a power-run ball-control team, that could basically tell the defense, "here we come, try to stop us." And if you paid too much attention to their running game, quarterback Phil Simms would go play-action and hit tight end Marc Bavaro down the middle of the field. Or Stacy Robinson, Bobbie Johnson, or Lionel Manuel deep on the outside. On defense, good luck running the ball against them. Because even though they played a 3-4, blocking nose tackle Jim Burt could be like blocking 2-3 men with one man. And then you got defensive end Leonard Marshall on one side and George Martin on the other. And if somehow you block those three guys, you got some guy named Lawrence Taylor coming off the edge. (Maybe you're old enough to have heard of him) Carl Banks on the other side. Great against the run and pass. Harry Carson in the middle, again who could play the run, or pass.
The 86 Giants were, a classic Blue-Collar in your face, "try to remove us" football team. That represented Blue-Collar New York and North Jersey as well as the 85 Chicago Bears represented Chicago. They just came at you and dared you to even fight back back, let alone try to kick their ass. The Redskins had opportunities to actually beat them in the 86 NFC Championship and they got a break playing the undersize Denver Broncos, instead of the NFC tough Cleveland Browns. But the 86 Giants were the best team in the NFL on both sides of the ball that whole year. And played their best football in Super Bowl after dominating the NFC Playoffs. And are a team that unfortunately wouldn't have sold too well with today's NFL fans. That only seem to be interested in offense and pretty boys. But that team would still dominate today and are still the best Giants Super Bowl team of all-time.
What I like most about Christopher Hitchens is why he never would have made a very successful politician. Because he had this big habit of always saying what he thought and what he knew. And he didn’t give a damn what others thought about it. His consistency for the most part and the on exception to that being how his national security and foreign policy views changed after 9/11, I believe are unparalleled. He wasn’t just an ant-Christian, or anti-Christian-Right radical on the Far-Left, but he was a true Atheist. He didn’t bash the Christian-Right for their positions on homosexuality, women’s place in the world, censorship, while he defended Muslims for believing that women and gays should be second-class citizens. He critiqued and attacked religious extremism wherever he saw it.
Politically, I’m not sure I have ever had much in common with Chris Hitchens. I’ve never been a Democratic Socialist, or a Neoconservative. I don’t know of many other people who’ve gone from one end to the other politically like that. But I’ve always respected his consistency especially with his Atheism. He’s someone who if he was alive today would be treated like a bigot by the New-Left in America, similar to how Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, are now treated. As being anti-Muslim and anti-Middle Eastern and so-forth. He was anti-Muslim, but he was also anti-Christian and anti every other religion. He saw religion as a dangerous force in the world and with his new neoconservative leanings and perhaps would have if he could had religion outlawed in America. Not sure about that, but he was a true militant Atheist.
I believe political and current affairs writers should be judged on their ability to learn, grasp and to be consistent. Do they say and write things that add up and where you could at least make a good case for their beliefs. Or do they just write for their team and over hype all the positive things about their side, while underplaying the low points of their side. And are they consistent, or do they contradict themselves. Do they bash religion, while only concentrating on one type of religion, or are they a true Atheist who doesn’t like religion in general. And will critique negative aspects of religion wherever they see it. Do they bash big government on one side, while praising it on another, but without calling it big government. Chris Hitchens, meets at least all of my standards as a great current affairs writer. Because he was someone who learned, who understood facts and made his arguments based on them. And adapted when he was wrong and because of these things and many others he’s still missed today and will be for a long time.
The New Orleans Saints finally not just make the playoffs in 1987, but had their first winning season as well. But several of those players that played for the 87 Saints were also there before Jim Mora got there. Like their great outside rush end Rickey Jackson, their great inside linebacker Sam Mills, their great halfback Rueben Mays, safety Dave Waymer, tight end Hobey Brenner and many others. The Saints under Bum Phillips and later Jim Finks and Jim Mora, drafted very well for the Saints for about five years in the 1980s. What Jim Mora brought to the Saints was teaching them how to win. He won championships in the USFL with the Baltimore Stars and that is the only reason why he went to the NFL which was to win. But he inherited a talented team and added to that.
If you look at the Saints of the early 1980s and then later in the late eighties and early nineties they were basically the same team on both sides of the ball as far as their philosophy, they were just better. But run they ran the ball real well and got big pass plays off of their running game and could put together long ball-control drives. And then on defense they could take away your running game and attack your quarterback with their 3-4 blitz pressure defense. Their 3-4 blitz defense was called the Dome Patrol. Where you had Rickey Jackson on one side and Pat Swilling on the other side. Both linebackers the essentially the size of smaller defensive ends with great speed. Where you would need an offensive tackle to block them. And then your three down lineman are there to eat up blocks and space to free up your linebackers to rush the quarterback and attack the runners.
As I mentioned in the piece about the 1983 Saints, Jim Finks and Jim Mora, didn’t inherit a bad 2-14 football team. The were 5-11 in 85 and 6-10 in 86, the first season under Mora. Mora, inherited good players on defense and offense and what he did with that was added to that and bring in more players on defense and offense. Like quarterback Bobby Hebert, who gave them a consistent passing game. And wide receiver Eric Martin, who gave them a very good possession receiver on the outside with good speed. And then they had Dalton Hilliard to go with Rueben Mays in the backfield. It took the Saints 21 seasons to become winners, but it didn’t happen overnight. They were building their good team for several years and finally put it all together in 1987.
If I was growing up, or an adult in the 1960s and 1970s, I might consider if I had access to, going through that decade on one big alcohol and illegal narcotics high. The problem with that is I probably wouldn't have survived it and lived to blog about those experiences today. Which might have only been a problem for myself. But the 1970s especially, was a very depressing decade. As I mentioned last week about 1979, without Hollywood, America would have been a country of Fins. A very depressed country all in search of a tall bridge to jump off hoping we wouldn't hit water as we jumped off. The problem with that is that there would have been lines of millions of Americans, not waiting for gas, but to all jump off the same bridge. Even escaping reality has its limits to it like taking the trip to escape reality and what it does to your body.
I think making a film, or book, (how about both and devote your whole life to the project) about George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign, (speaking of marijuana highs) would have been entertaining and depressing enough. We didn't need Dennis Kucinich, a former U.S. Representative and two-time presidential candidate who lost his House seat to another Democrat, because we had George McGovern. Whose 1972 presidential campaign made it appear that he wasn't running for President of the United States. But Planet Utopia, where there's no poverty, no discrimination, no hate and no anything else that good people tend to see as bad. And what also made Senator McGovern's campaign strange, was that I don't think the man even drank. Let alone smoked marijuana, or any other illegal narcotics. He was just out there, I mean out there as a sober man. Here's a guy who lost a presidential election to a criminal. You can't even beat a criminal in a presidential election, you're pretty pathetic.
I think covering Jimmy Carter would have been interesting enough. Here's a guy who was also a politician and yet he also seemed like a human being as well. Who didn't try to convince people he was perfect, or cover up obvious mistakes and took actual responsibility for himself and people who worked for him. Speaking of Planet Utopia, imagine a country where politicians actually seemed like real people and not robots, or puppets. Where you have someone standing behind the politician telling them what to say when a reporter has the balls to ask the politician a real question that puts the politician on the spot. I'm not here blaming politicians, because they get elected and reelected and reelected and reelected, until they die, or people sober up and decide to vote them out, by voters who are us and everyday people. But Jimmy Carter, actually seemed like a real American, just a hell of a lot smarter.
Sometimes I wish I was born 20-25 years later and not born during the middle of one of the recession's from the 1970s. Because then I would have gotten to grow up, or have been part of the civil rights movement and perhaps even the hippie movement. I think it would have been great to live during 1968, just to see if I could have survived that year. But then someone slaps me in the face and I wake up and think to myself, "what are you fucking crazy!" Coming up during that time period would have been hell I think. Sure! It would have been fun, especially if I didn't get drafted to Vietnam and didn't have a way to get to Canada. But a lot of that time period would have been so depressing for me. I mean, I got through 1979, 2001, 2009-10. I think that is enough trauma for one person who hasn't turned 40 yet. (Knock on wood) But its a great time to write and blog about.
“Nothing in Washington happens in a vacuum, and so as S.E. Cupp argues today, of course the Benghazi Special Committee is political, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to investigate something important.
In her latest New York Daily News column, Cupp has no problem saying the hearings have “an element of the political” to them because 1) a Clinton is involved, and 2) it’s happening in an election season.
So basically, “as much as former prosecutor and House Benghazi chairman Trey Gowdy wants his hearings to avoid politics, anyone who tells you that’s actually possible is either lying or preternaturally naive.”
Hillary Clinton‘s campaign and the Democrats have pounced on recent statements suggesting that the Benghazi hearings are partly about politics, declaring the committee to be tainted by politics.
But does Clinton have a leg to stand on here? Per Cupp:
Hillary herself is playing the politics. When House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy suggested that Clinton’s poll numbers have suffered because of the investigations — not, incidentally, an admission that this was the sole reason for the investigations — Clinton was quick to turn this into political capital for her presidential campaign, using his comments in her first national television ad entitled “Admit.” (See also stories like Bloomberg’s “Hillary Clinton Looks to Turn Benghazi Hearing into Next Boost.”) Is Hillary allowed to use the hearing for political gain, while scolding Republicans for doing just that? Apparently, yes.
And yes, she concludes, Clinton’s credibility is an issue worth looking into, even if the atmosphere surrounding it is partly political in nature.”
The great CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow on his newscast See it Now, one night devoted his whole show to the Joe McCarthy hearings in the Senate. And he said that and I’m paraphrasing here, “one of the purposes of Congressional hearings (referring to the Senate McCarthy hearings) is to find out the truth and how government operates and to get information and facts about proposed legislation.”
Would someone please tell me what we learned at the House Benghazi hearing yesterday about that Benghazi tragedy? Not all tragedies are criminal. There are times when mistakes are made and people are unprepared that result in a tragedy. And House Republicans can talk about coverup all they want, so we really don’t know what happened at Benghazi. But if that is the case then they’re horrible lawyers and investigators, because it would be almost impossible to cover up a tragedy like that today.
All we got from the Thursday House Benghazi hearing was House Republicans giving Hillary Clinton the Christmas gift of the year. Even though she really had to earn it by devoting ten hours of her life to those Republicans. Most of them not being in Congress when she left to become Secretary of State in 2009.
The gift being 10 hours of free publicity on national TV where she looked like the responsible adult, explaining to little children what can happen when you forget to close the door at night, or leave the door open during a big rain or snowstorm. And in her case when you have a U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya and you don’t have enough security in an area where the host government can’t protect their foreign visitors. The Benghazi tragedy happened, because our embassy over there was undermanned and unprepared, especially as it relates to the security. But we knew all of this two years ago.
I swear that Barbara Eden, Kim Novak, Raquel Welch and Jaclyn Smith, must all have the same workout plan and use the same facial cream, or something. I mean you look at Barbara when she was 50, 60, 70 and now which practically impossible for me to believe and harder to believe that she turned 60 and 70 and now 80 years old, she looks the same and not day older in any of those photos. It's as if the Barbie doll was invented for Barbara Eden.
I Dream of Jeannie, is of course what Barbara Eden is known for, but she's more than that. She's an ageless goddess and perhaps the cutest entertainer from her generation who even at 81 still comes off as a baby-faced adorable Hollywood Goddess. An 81 year old woman who is still gorgeous and baby-faced adorable.
When Barbara was in her early and mid thirties in the 1960s on I Dream of Jeannie, she had a tendency to come as a kid and even little girl. Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield, had similar issues when they were working. But she made that work for her, because she's so adorably funny as well and sexy and gorgeous.
I think the Tony Nelson character on that show must at times must of felt that Jeannie was like having a daughter and big kid in the house even though Larry Hagman and Barbara Eden are only three years apart in real-life. On the show Jeannie is a couple thousand years older than U.S. Air Force Major Tony Nelson. But of course you wouldn't know that by looking at Larry Hagman and Barbara Eden on that show. Because in years she could probably pass as Hagman's daughter.
Despite the realness and realism of I Dream of Jeannie, with a Persian Jeannie with blonde hair and light complexion, who is a couple thousand years old and speaks perfect English and lives in bottle, (ha, ha) we are not talking about a great show. The show is simply not believable and looks like a sci-fi comedy, or Star Trek comes to Planet Earth.
But Jeannie, because she was freakin adorable and funny and was such an expert at getting into trouble and so overprotective of her Master Major Tony Nelson and with how funny Larry Hagman and Bill Daily were on that show, it worked.
And because of the success of that show it probably meant that Barbara Eden (or Baby Barbie as I like to call her) would never have to worry about working again. And its a show that has been in syndication for what what 45-50 years now. And she's made a great career for herself.
Good question, because how is a job where the employee bags groceries, rings up groceries, makes cheeseburgers, cleans up after people, takes orders from customers, worth. Not as much as the person who hires those people, or as much as the people who supervise those employees. In a not free, but private market economy, a lot of this is left up to the employer as far as how much their employees are worth over the minimum wage. Whatever the minimum wage should be, it can't be so high that small employers especially simply can't afford to pay their entry-level employees that wage. You don't want a minimum wage that equals the amount of money of a supervisor, or a manager. Because the supervisor and manager simply has more responsibility and value to the company, then someone who is just starting with the business. Perhaps coming off Welfare and might only have a high school diploma.
I hate the term non-essential employee, because it implies that other employees are not essential. Which comes up in the minimum wage debates and opponents will say that entry-level and other lower-level employees aren't worth much more than the minimum wage, or even worth less, because they're not essential. Which is a bogus argument, because how would you run a grocery store with cashiers and stockers. You might not need cashiers now because customers can now ring up their own groceries, but you eliminate all cashiers, now you're spending more money on computers. Which might be more expensive. But someone has to stock the store, work in the bakery, work in seafood, work in the deli, etc. And the store wouldn't be open without these employees who in many cases are making 8-9 bucks and hour and that is if they have experience working there, or at another store.
The United States poverty level is roughly twenty-thousand-dollars a year, give or take. Which is about four-hundred-dollars a week for a full-time employee. The current Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour and if you work forty-hours a week fifty-two weeks a year and if that is what you're making you probably don't have vacation pay, that comes out $290 a week. Just over fifteen-thousand-dollars a year, which roughly 3-4 of the poverty level in the United States. So minimum wage employees in America don't even make the official poverty level in America, but about seventy-five-percent of that. And again we're talking about essential employees that without their employers couldn't be in business and yet their employers feel they're paid adequately. Which of course is not accurate.
I don't know what entry-level and other lower-level workers are worth. But again their employers wouldn't be in business without them, so that tells me they're worth a hell of a lot more than they are. I'm not on board for a fifteen-dollar an hour minimum wage at least at the Federal level. What states and localities do is their business. But 10-12 an hour and again not a lot of money even for a full-time employee, they're certainly worth that, because again their employer wouldn't be in business without them. And then help small business's with a tax credit so they don't get hurt by it. While large employers who are clearly underpaying their employees would have to pay the full amount. And Libertarians and Conservatives will say that, "the market should decide all wages and compensation in America." But the fact is the market doesn't do that, but employers only with government setting basic standards for workers compensation.
Every time I hear someone interview Senator Bernie Sanders and someone asks him what does he mean by socialist and socialism, I end up feeling like I’m one of his campaign spokesman. Because he never fully answers that question and I end up explaining what he means by socialist and socialism just based on positions he takes in his campaign and his speeches. Democratic Socialists, Bernie Sanders. Marxists, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Mao, Joe Stalin and people like that. A Democratic Socialist, just wants to tax most of your money away from you and use government to take care of you. A Marxist, won’t ever let you see your own money. Because in a Marxist state you don’t own anything and you’ll probably be poor anyway, unless you have a sweet gig with the central government. And then they might use some of the state revenue to see to it that you don’t have to starve, or something.
Any politician who tells you that they have free government programs for you, ask them if they know of any great ski resorts in San Diego and hows the snow there. You might want to ask them if they also have a great deal on a 1978 Ford Pinto, or do they have any New Hampshire palm trees that they want to sell. All these new government programs that Bernie is talking about all come with a cost. What’s the clue there? They’re government programs! Anyone who pays taxes in America knows that government is not free. And you could raise taxes on the wealthy by fifty-percent if you want to. (Some people are screaming why not!) And watch people in Canada and Mexico get rich because of all the new money that is now being invested in those counties in order to avoid 60-70% tax rates in capitalist America.
So of course the middle class are going to have to pay for their free college, free childcare, free health insurance, free health care, free food, free housing, whatever else the Senator wants to give away for free. Because those things won’t be free for anyone whose receiving them. He’ll have to increase payroll taxes and income taxes on perhaps everybody to pay for them. Even when government pays for services through borrowing and asking for a check from the King of Saudi Arabia, or the Prime Minister of Japan, taxpayers have to pay for that as well. In the form of interest on the national debt and higher interest rates. You want government services, you have to pay for them unless you’re too poor to pay taxes. Which most of the country isn’t . If Senator Sanders is going to become President Sanders, he’s going to have to convince millions of Americans, especially Americans who aren’t Democratic Socialists that they should want to pay for these new services.
The weakness of the Sanders Campaign, is that they’re promising a lot of Christmas gifts (even in October) without telling people who they will be charged for their own gifts. Imagine receiving a Christmas gift from your brother and he tells you, “Joe, I’m glad you enjoy your new book, but that’s going to be twenty bucks. I don’t have the money to pay for it myself.” I would probably hit my brother with the book, or throw the book at him. (Pun intended) So what Bernie should be doing is, “saying look at these other countries and the services that they provide for their people. And how they pay for them. That is what I want to do here.” While also explaining to people that those services are paid for through payroll taxes, income taxes and sales taxes. I don’t agree with that approach, but at least he would be straight with the hundreds of millions of American taxpayers that he wants to represent as their president.
Apparently to be considered a Conservative with the Tea Party/Far-Right base on the Republican Party, you have to hate Barack Obama. See him as a criminal, be willing to shut down the U.S. Government to get exactly what you want and repeal at any cost anything that the Obama Administration was able to get passed through Congress in their first two years. On policy grounds Representative Paul Ryan the most likely incoming Speaker of the House, is inline the Tea Party on 99% of the issues that they care about. But he's more interested in tactics, vision and governing, then fighting the good fights and losing badly. Representative Ryan, is a legislature. He came to the House of Representatives to legislate and accomplish certain policy objectives. The Tea Party, is not about governing, because to govern in Washington especially in a divided government you have to work with the other party.
A Speaker of the House, who can't work with a President of the other party, the Minority Leader of the House when controversial legislation has to be passed and they don't have the votes to pass it on their own side, who can't work with the Senate Leadership regardless of which party runs it, won't be Speaker for very long. Because the job of the Speaker is to govern and not just pass legislation that gets blocked, or voted down in the Senate, or even it makes it out of the Senate and gets vetoed by the President. The Speaker, is not a political activist, but a the leader of their House Caucus and the leader of the House as well. He's not there simply to do whatever the most vocal and active political activists in their party want to do, but to govern. And again if your party doesn't control the presidency, you have to work with the other party in order to do that.
Paul Ryan, by far in a way is the best candidate for Speaker that House Republicans have. Wouldn't be my choice for Speaker as a Democrat, but just at the House Republican side right now, I'm not sure they have anyone who comes close. Paul Ryan, doesn't need the Tea Party, or to be a member of the House. Doesn't want to be President, or run for the Senate, or even Governor of Wisconsin. There are plenty of other jobs that he could be doing in Washington, or back home in Wisconsin. Unlike John Boehner, he doesn't need the House Republican Conference. But they need him if they want to be looked at as a responsible governing party again. That can take two steps forward without stepping on one of their own toes. Or put their gun back in their holster without shooting off one of their toes. A Speaker Paul Ryan, would mean that the House could function again and that Congress could function again. Because the Senate would know there's now an adult in charge of the House.
%20(2015)%20-%20Google%20Search.png)
