Queen Latifah: Jaclyn Smith Ageless Beauty

Source:The Daily Press

The title says it all about one of the best overall looking women of all time. Here’s a women whose going to be 70 in October, 70 years old. A gorgeous and still baby-faced adorable red-head who if anything is actually sexier now than she was in the late 1970s when she became a star on Charlie’s Angels. Her and Raquel Welch, they seem to refuse to age. As Raquel has put it several times, looking good is her job. That is what she does and has all the motivation to look good and take care of herself, because it is how she makes her living as a businesswomen and someone with her own fashion business now. I believe Jaclyn Smith is in the same category. That looking good and fashion is her business. And the best way I think she believes she can promote that is looking as good as she possibly can herself.

There isn’t a better women that could have coined Ageless Beauty, or could have had that term named for her better than Jaclyn Smith. She’s been in Hollywood , the entertainment business and fashion industry, for over forty years now. Before I was born I’m sure, which makes me feel a little younger and yet she still looks 10-15, maybe even twenty years younger than she actually is. Here’s a women who was born at the end of World War II which was seventy years ago and she looks better today than probably most women young enough to be her daughter. And I’m sure many women young enough to be her granddaughter as well. She’s the definition of ageless beauty and 10-15 years from now will probably still be modeling her own products, because she’ll be able to give people personal experience that they work.

This is going to sound corny, but so what, because it’s so true. You’re as young as you feel and age really is only a number. I’ve seen men and women in their late thirties and early forties who are going gray already. Men that young, going bald who look 10-15 years older than they actually are. From either drinking and smoking too much, or both, perhaps using harder drugs, not eating right, not exercising, not managing stress, etc. And I’ve seen men women who actually are as old in years as younger people, who look as old as they actually are, who look as young as the younger people who’ve aged too fast. And why is that, because time machines haven’t been invented yet. The younger looking healthier looking people like Jackie Smith, take care of themselves. They enjoy life while actually taking care of themselves. Instead of seeing how hard they can live before they die.

NFL Films: 'A Little History of the Minnesota Vikings'

Source:Football Docs- Vikings WR Randy Moss.

Source:The Daily Press 

"America's Game Missing Rings 1998 Minnesota Vikings" 

From Football Docs

When you look at teams that should've won championships but didn't, I look at teams that were really the best at what they did in their league for that year. Teams that had everything on paper, the talent, the chemistry, the character, the coaching. Teams that stayed healthy and finally, but definitely not last, teams that lost their big game to a team they should've not only beat, but lost to a team they should've whipped, that's the 1998 Minnesota Vikings.

They had the best offense in the NFL in 1998, running basically (what I call) the Spread Vertical Offense the offense that Sid Gilman invented in the 1950s with Sid Gilman with the Los Angeles Rams, with Norm Van Brocklin, Leroy Hirsch and company. That Al Davis adopted in the 1960s with the Oakland Raiders, where you have at least wide receiver if not two WR running a post-route on every play. You push the safety's back to open up the rest of the field so you can also work passes to your slot-receivers, tight ends and even running backs. Basically forcing the defense to cover the whole field. It takes a great offensive line and quarterback to be successful in an offense like this.

You also need a great QB who can throw deep and accurately, but doesn't get too greedy and who works the rest of the field. You need a solid running game as well to keep defenses honest. But again we are talking about the 98 Vikings here right, they had all of that. 

In 98 QB Randall Cunningham showing the world how great a QB he could be and not just a great talent. The OL with offensive guard Steve Hutchinson, center Matt Birk, tackle Corey Stringer,all Pro Bowlers, all big strong and mobile. Pro Bowler Robert Smith at RB and all purpose RB, reminds me a little of Marcus Allen, had he not retired early would probably be in the Hall of Fame.

The 1998 Viking had really three deep threats who were all big and tall at WR that could all run. Randy Moss as a rookie Chris Carter the 2nd best WR of the 1990s behind only Jerry Rice and Jake Reed as your third WR. Moss and Reed running post-routes with Carter running the inside routes with a lot of room to run. The Vikings were a speed team playing in a dome stadium perhaps the loudest stadium in the league in the Metrodome.

The Vikings played on turf they had the perfect environment playing the two-gap cover-two defense with four pass rushers up front led by defensive tackle John Randle who'll be in the Hall of Fame. Keeping your safety's deep so even if you don't get the pass rush, you prevent the big play. 

The Vikings didn't have a great defense, but when you're scoring 35 points a game and you give up 20 your defense is good enough. But it wasn't good enough in the 1998 NFC Final to the Atlanta Falcons losing to a team that was 7-9 in 1997, they hadn't made the playoffs since 1995 and went 9-7 that year to make the playoffs. The 98 Vikings were a team that had the total package, kinda like a fast break basketball team that would get some early stops and run you out of the building on offense.

Super Bowl 33 played in January 1999 (with the famous Ally Landry Tostitos Commercial is really the only thing I remember about that game. The best team in the AFC in the Denver Broncos that were I believe 13-3 in 1998 coached by Mike Shanahan with QB John Elway, TE Shannon Sharpe, RB Terrell Davis and company. 

The Broncos played a jump start Atlanta Falcons team coached by Dan Reeves who was a big reason for their success and a lot of players that had career years and didn't do much before or after that. With QB Chris Chandler, WR Tony Martin, TE OJ Santiago and others. When it should've been the Vikings and Broncos in Miami playing one of the best Super Bowls ever.

NFL Films: NFL 1983: The Washington Redskins Yearbook

Source:The Daily Press

Even though the 1983 Redskins won the NFC Championship but lost Super Bowl 18 to the Los Angeles Raiders in a blow out, I believe they are the best offensive team the Redskins have ever had in the Super Bowl era. The only other team that I would consider would be the 1982 Redskins that did win Super Bowl 17 over the Miami Dolphins because they were better defensively, but the 1983 Redskins had a dominant offense, one of the best ever scoring something like 540 points.

The 1983 Redskins blew teams away and also playing a toughest schedule just to get to the Super Bowl. In the NFC East alone, playing the Dallas Cowboys twice and the Philadelphia Eagles and St. Louis Cardinals that were still competitive. Playing three conference finals teams in the regular season, the San Francisco 49ers, Raiders and Seattle Seahawks. Playing the Anaheim Rams (as I called them) twice in 1983 including in the NFC Playoffs, playing the Atlanta Falcons that were in the NFC Playoffs in 1982.

The Redskins played a lot of playoff teams in 1983 and still won 16 games including in the NFC Playoffs and lost 3 including the Super Bowl. They also had some close games, but those games were against playoff teams, including against the Cowboys twice. The 1983 Redskins were also in a bunch of shootouts as the game against the Raiders would indicate. Because even though their run defense and pass rush were still very good, the pass defense slipped a bit because they were working in people like rookie corner back Darrel Green who's in the Hall of Fame and safety Ken Coffey. But offensively they were much more explosive.

Super Bowl 18 against the Raiders where the Redskins lost 38-9, the score is a little misleading. I'm not saying the 1983 Raiders didn't have a great team, because they obviously did if you look at their team, their head coach Tom Flores, where they ranked in the NFL and who they beat. But the Redskins made some key mistakes in that game, first on defense trying to cover Raiders wide receiver Cliff Branch who I believe should be in the Hall of Fame with a rookie CB Darrel Green, they should've double teamed Branch the whole game at least on post routes.

And on offense when the Raiders were playing 8-9 Man Fronts on defense, with the Redskins consistently trying to run and getting nowhere against those fronts they should've thrown the ball against them short routes worked the tight end throw screen passes, to both tailback Joe Washington and work TB John Riggins in the pass offense as well when they couldn't use him in the run offense. And the late in the first half when they were trailing 14-3 deep in their territory instead of throwing that (infamous) screen pass to Joe Washington that worked for a long TD against the Raiders in the regular season, they threw that same pass, but it was picked off by linebacker Jack Squirek for a TD making the score 21-3. Because the Raiders defense saw that same play and remembered it and saw it coming. They should've tried to run out the clock instead.

I'm not saying the Redskins would've beaten the Raiders in Super Bowl 18 had they had a better game plan, but without that INT in the first half for a TD, its probably 14-3 Raiders at the half. And the Redskins scored a TD to start off the 2nd half but got the extra point blocked. This should've been a 14-10 game Raiders leading in the 3rd quarter with the momentum with the Redskins. Their defense feeling recharged thinking they are back in it. Super Bowl 18 should've been one of the best Super Bowls of all time, had the Redskins had a better game plan instead of a 38-9 blowout as it was.

NFL Films: The Story of the 1982 Washington Redskins

Source:The Daily Press 

Of the three Super Bowl Championships that the Washington Redskins won, the 1982 Championship is my favorite because no one other than the Redskins themselves, expected them to do anything. I believe the Redskins knew they were good. Joe Theisman knew he was a good quarterback and could play. John Riggins knew he was a good tailback who just needed an opportunity and be able to play the right position tailback not fullback. They knew they had a very good offensive line, if not the best in the NFL. They knew they had a good defense, giving up the fewest points in the league in 1982.

But no one else knew, because the Redskins were a collection of players, their main players that other teams had given up on or didn't bother drafting. Like offensive tackle Joe Jacoby who will be in the Hall of Fame, offensive guard Russ Grimm who's in the Hall of Fame by the way. Center Jeff Bostic was cut by the Philadelphia Eagles a big rival of the Redskins. So as a Redskin fan myself, it's great that we took both QB Sonny Jurgenson and Jeff Bostic from the Eagles. And a lot of the other players were holdovers from the George Allen regime, the "Over the Hill Gang".

People like OT George Starke, defensive tackle Dave Butz, kicker Mark Mosely who was the NFL MVP in 1982. But some of the Redskins key players were drafted after Bobby Beatherd became general manager in 1978 replacing George Allen and drafted some of the players, so the Redskins were starting to regroup in the late 1970s. With players like tight end Don Warren, linebacker Monte Coleman, LB Mell Kauffman, LB Rich Milot, LB Neal Olkewitz who the rest of the NFL probably thought was too small. But started for two Super Bowl Champions in Olkewitz's case.

The 1982 Redskins were a collection of holdovers, free agents that no one else wanted or drafted and a group of players that were drafted before the Joe Gibbs era. And Joe Gibbs knew that he had a good team with the Hogs on the OL, QB Joe Theisman, TB John Riggins, WR Art Monk, WR Charlie Brown, one of the best defenses in the NFL. Not one of the most talented, but one of the best and that's different. With defensive end Dexter Manley, DT Darryl Grant, DT Dave Butz, the LBs that I just mentioned. Vernon Dean and hard-hitting Mark Murphy in the secondary.

But the rest of the NFL didn't know that the Redskins were a good team and nobody else respected them as NFC East Champions or the number one seed in the NFC. Which was perfect because the best time to strike is when your opponents aren't ready for you. And the way to earn your respect is by winning, winning playoff games and winning championships. Which is exactly what the Redskins did in 1982, take out their disrespect against their opponents.

That's what made the 1982 Redskins so special and I believe are still the best Redskins Super Bowl Champion. They were a collection of very good players that most people never heard of, all put into one championship package. Led by Joe Gibbs and his coaching staff the 1982 Redskins were so good that they could take it to the best defense in the NFL if you look at their talent in the Dallas Cowboys with their Doomsday Flex Defense. That probably had the best defensive line in the NFL with DE Ed Jones, the best DT in the NFL in Randy White, arguably the best DT of all-time, and DE Harvey Martin.

The Redskins ran the ball down the Cowboys Flex Defense throat with John Riggins and the Hogs and they ran it down Randy White's throat with OG Russ Grimm smashing and blowing Randy White out-of-the-way play after play and it was great. That's how good the 1982 Redskins were and I'm not sure a lot of people understand that.

Wag The Dog (1997)

Source:The Daily Press

The late 1990s was a crazy and fascinating time for many reasons politically and other things and also one of the best periods for Hollywood as far as making movies. Some of my favorite movies of all-time come from 1997-99. Wag the Dog 1997 being one of them, Jackie Brown 1997 being another as far as I'm concern the best Quentin Tarratino movie of all-time. Out of Sight 1998 being another one, Primary Colors 1998 another one of my favorite movies. Cop Land 1997, The Big Lebowski 1998 maybe my favorite comedy of all-time with a great comedy duo in Jeff Bridges and John Goodman. Very Bad Things 1998 another very funny movie, Wild Things 1998 very funny.

But one movie in particular because it fit in perfectly with the times especially politically. The Monica Lewinski scandal breaks in January 1998 the same month that the Pope visits Cuba which I doubt made the United States Government very happy especially with their embargo policy of Cuba. And also when President Clinton was probably at his most popular. Wag the Dog came out about a year earlier, in the Summer of 1997, two American embassies in East Africa were bombed and then America attacks both Sudan and Afghanistan. 

Because the Clinton Administration believed that the Sudanese Government had a role of the African bombings. Again we attack Afghanistan as well that same month August 1998, but here's the thing and why Wag the Dog is so relevant. That movie is about people working for the White House creating the appearance of a war in order to get the media and people's attention off the latest sex scandal of the President.

After America attacked Sudan and Afghanistan by sending in missile strikes, Republicans in Congress Senator Dan Coates of Indiana whose generally a pretty rational and responsible person, right away questions whether the missile strikes had something to do with the Lewinski scandal. And was done as a distraction just like in the movie Wag the Dog and even said something to that effect. "I wonder or I hope this is not a Wag the Dog moment for President Clinton". The movie came out just a few months before the Lewinski scandal broke. Wag the Dog is a movie about the President being in trouble with another sex scandal. He's a popular President up until the scandal and looks like he's flying to reelection.

But the scandal breaks and of course his opponent in the race a U.S. Senator played by Craig Nelson try's to make the most out of it. Senator Nelson lets say is way down in the polls and is looking for anything he can to break through. Someone in the White House calls in a veteran big shot political strategist to deal with the scandal played by Robert DeNiro and he gets the idea that what the President needs is a distraction. To get the country's attention off of the sex scandal and comes up with the idea of a fake war and hire a Hollywood producer played by Dustin Hoffman to put this show together. 

Wag the Dog is a great movie for several reasons, one because of how relevant it is, perhaps not realistic though especially in the information age. And this movie did come out in 1997 as far as them being able to cover up a fake war without the Defense Department, CIA or someone knowing about it. But it's still a very funny movie, well written and a great cast Robert DeNiro, Dustin Hoffman, Bill Macy, Ann Heche, Craig Nelson, Dennis Leary and others. And how desperate that these politicos were to save a Presidency and would even create a fake war to do that.

Axel Reyes: Kennedy (1983)

Source:The Daily Press

There have been several movies about John F. Kennedy. Because even though he only lived forty-six years there were so many things that went on in his life that were worth writing and filming about. Like his Navy career, what he did right after that trying to decide what he would do the rest of his life. His first campaign for the House of Representatives in 1946, his time in the House, he was a bit of a playboy there. 

And not very disciplined, but of course he had the great name and was such a charming man and likable. His friendship with Richard Nixon in the House and later in the Senate. Sen. Kennedy's name and charm was good enough for him to keep his job in the House and then even running for the Senate in 1952. His first Senate campaign of course being elected the same year that Dwight Eisenhower.

Jack Kennedy was elected to the Senate in 1952 and served in the last Republican Congress until 1995 with the Gingrich Revolution. Jack Kennedy's time in the Senate, where he becomes more serious and takes the job seriously and puts in the time and work because of course he had bigger goals, Sen. Kennedy writes a book in the Senate Profiles in Courage where there was some controversy about whether Sen. Kennedy wrote the book or was the book written by Ted Sorenson one of his Senate staffers. 

Adali Stevenson the 1956 Democratic nominee considers Sen. Kennedy as his Vice Presidential nominee which would've been a disaster for Sen. Kennedy. Because GOV. Stevenson lost to President Eisenhower in a landslide and Kennedy wouldn't of made much of a difference. I believe Hollywood for the most part has done a very good job with Jack Kennedy with making movies about him. 

Unlike Oliver Stone with Richard Nixon, they haven't tried to cover Jack Kennedy's whole life with one huge movie. They've broken his life up in several stage. There was one mini-series alone  I believe shown by CBS about the Kennedy's relationship between them. Especially Jack and Bobby with union leader Jimmy Hoffa. Another movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 from 2000, another movie about Sen. Kennedy's involvement in Civil Rights. A new Mini Series in 2011 about the Kennedy Presidency, a movie about Jack Kennedy's navy career.

You could make another movie about Jack Kennedy's Congressional career or the great presidential election of 1960 that featured Jack Kennedy and Dick Nixon between two future presidents. Or another movie about the Bay of Pigs Crisis in 1962 the failed attempt to oust Fidel Castro as President of Cuba. There are so many things that happened in Jack Kennedy's life that are fascinating that are worth making public either by book, TV or movie that trying to cover the whole life in one movie or mini-series is too much, because you're bound to miss something. 

The Kennedy mini-series from 1983 with Martin Sheen is a pretty good, but not great mini-series. And it focus's just on the Kennedy Presidency, starting on Election Night 1960 when of course Sen. Kennedy is elected President in one of the closest presidential elections of all- time beating of course a sitting Vice President who worked for a very popular President in Dwight Eisenhower beating Dick Nixon in 1960, a very long election night. Sen. Kennedy finds out that he's just been elected President 6 or 7 the next morning. Jack Kennedy deserves several movies about him, all focusing on different aspects of his life.

Free Thinking: Bill Maher- Be More Cynical on Religion'

Source:Free Thinking- comedian Bill Maher, talking about religion in 2000.

Source:The Daily Press 

"Bill Maher in his 2000 special "Be More Cynical" talking about the Christian religion." 

From Free Thinking

Being cynical is probably a conservative, boring way to live your life, where you'll end up taking less risks and you are not putting your heart on the line very often. 

Not trying to sound gushy, but being cynical has its advantages as well. You'll probably get burned and disappointed less, because you're taking less chances. You're not automatically going to take someone's word when they say something. 

For example, when a member of Congress refers to someone from the other party as their friend, which happens all the time in the Senate, you're not automatically going to assume Senator Smith is friends with Senator Jones or John McCain is friends with George W. Bush, just because they say that. You'll understand that they may just be saying that. 

That's how Washington works and when a member of Congress is referred to as a distinguished gentlemen or distinguished gentlelady, you know that they not be distinguished at all. Perhaps except for being a leader in Congress when it comes to fundraising, or bridges to nowhere, or bringing home the bacon. (That no one eats) Because no one lives or drives there, etc. 

If you trust someone who has a good track record with you, they have sound judgement, etc, and they invite out to treat you for dinner or will pick up the check, you know to take their word they'll do those things. But when you offer them something to eat and give it to them, something they never had before and they taste it and have a horrible look on their face and they say its not good, chances are they are just being nice and don't take that seriously. Truth and flattery are different.

The only advice I would give here, is take things in life for what they are. And don't automatically assume everything you hear is the truth. Especially from people who need you for something. I would start with politicians, but anyone who needs something from you, when they do and say things that make sense and you know why they did it and understand it, great. 

But if they do or say something strange that's out of character and is something that's not a good thing, for example let's say you love playing tennis. And someone you know needs something from you. And they don't have a clue about tennis and don't even like the game and they start talking to about tennis, trying to express an interest in it, even challenging you to a match, don't automatically assume they've become tennis fans. 

They just might want you to believe that they are tennis fans instead, as a way to communicate to you. When they give you an explanation for it, unless it makes sense and adds up, don't automatically assume they are saying what happened or the whole truth. Because they might only be saying what they want you to hear.

I know I'm a political junky and I have this pattern of using political stories to communicate broader points. But this is my last political story here. 

Politicians are the perfect people to be cynical about. If a white-collar politician comes to your state, hell let's say running for President, why not and I'm not going to use a name here, a wealthy white-collar wine and cheese yuppy politician, let's say.This person comes to your State and let's say your state has a lot of blue-collar workers there, lets say Pennsylvania or Ohio and this politician stops by one of your local taverns or bowling allies in Pittsburgh, to speak to your people and this person comes to show you his bowling skills, trying to convince you he has some game and hangs out with you folks all the time, just to get your votes. When the fact is he's not only never bowled before, but looks down at blue-collar bowlers as low-class.

Or the white collar limo owning and riding politician  drinks beer to show you he likes beer, but generally doesn't do these things, don't automatically assume this politician is like you. But instead wants you to believe he is, to get you to vote for him. He wants your vote not to be friends. 

The more you take things as they are and not just what you want them to be, the better you'll be off if life. And I know that sounds unromantic and perhaps unreligious, but what do you expect from an Agnostic anyway. Because you'll always know or at least most of them depending on how intelligent you are, who is with you and who wants you to believe they are with you in order to get something out of you. 

Movie Clips: Primary Colors (1998)

Source:The Daily Press

I saw the movie Primary Colors in the spring of 1998. Doesn't seem that long ago, but that's a different story with a long time friend of mine from high school who'll go nameless. And we saw it for free because my friend worked at a movie theater, one of the few perks of being friends of him. And I looked forward to seeing this movie, because it reminded me of a real life Southern politician another New Democrat. The real Liberal Democrats, who's a political hero of mine, who had the ability and vision to do great things. But lacked personal discipline, made too many mistakes for someone with his intelligence who also had a strong take charge attractive wife played by Emma Thomas. Who've could've been very successful on her own.

The question being could her husband be successful on his own. Same question in this movie Primary Colors was full of scenes that looked like the real person I'm talking about and if you've seen the movie and follow American politics, you probably already know who I'm talking about. And the movie was also based on this real life person, liberal governor from the South who culturally fit in very well with his state and the broader region. Who didn't have any Federal Government experience, not even serving in the military. Who despite being a Southerner, fit in very well with people outside of that region especially Northeastern and Hollywood Democrats who have a lot of power in the Democratic Party if not run the party.

The main politician in Primary Colors the character played by John Travolta, great actor and a very funny man GOV. Jack Stanton running for President, had the strong wife that I was talking about. Started running for President in New Hampshire with a very small budget and staff, just like the real life person. Had a sex scandal that involved a long time friend of the Governor, had really smart political strategist also from the South played byBilly Bob Thornton. Again long time friend of the Governor just like the real life person, veteran politicos as well a young people on his staff. Just like the real life person and there was a question of whether GOV. Stanton evaded the Vietnam War Draft just like the real life character.

There was a primary debate where GOV. Stanton had a big moment to win the debate just like the real movie. There was a campaign event, where GOV. Stanton was able to connect with the audience his I feel your pain moment just like the real movie. When GOV. Stanton basically told the audience that "I know times are tough, but I can't promise you the jobs you lost are coming back. That its time that a lot of American workers go back to school and learn other trades". Which also happened with the real life character. And of course the comeback kid moment in New Hampshire where GOV. Stanton does well enough in New Hampshire to keep his campaign going.

Of course the real life person I"m talking about is Bill Clinton who back in 1991-92, when he was running for President was Governor of Arkansas and was a Liberal Democrat ,but in the true sense. Progressive sure, but also understood the limits of government and the New Deal and Great Society. And that government has to be more responsible with tax revenue and of course all those situations that I just laid in the movie actually happened with Bill Clinton or were very similar. 

Very intelligent, but not very discipline, strong intelligent wife with Hillary Clinton. Small budget and campaign in New Hampshire, memorable debate where he takes in Jerry Brown. The campaign event where he feels the senior citizens pain and walks up to her and hugs her. The sex scandal with Jennifer Flowers, the story of whether Bill Clinton dodged the Vietnam War. Great Political Strategist Jim Carville all of these things being true. 

Primary Colors was based on Bill Clinton and his 1992 campaign for president where of course he was elected president. And also based on a book by author Joel Klein that was fictional with different names for the characters. But still based on a true story and they both did a very good job and this was a very entertaining movie.

Dream Works: The Contender (2000) Joan Allen: 'My Church is This Very Chapel of Democracy'

Source: Dream Works- Joan Allen as U.S. Senator Lane Hanson-

Source:Dream Works 

Except for the part about taking every gun out of private hands and private homes, which might be a far-left Hollywood fantasy and clearly against the Second Amendment and the Right to Self-Defense, this was a very good speech by Vice Presidential nominee Senator Lane Evans in The Contender. She was talking about the women's Right to Choose, of course referring to abortion. The constitutional amendment that gave women the right to vote. Freeing the African slaves in the civil war and using military force to fight for human rights.

If I wrote that speech, I would've taken out the part about the guns, left everything else in there. And also talked about Freedom of Speech for everyone, the Right to Privacy for everyone to do everything as long as innocent people aren't hurt as a result. The right to a quality education for all, which I believe we should have for freedom to really be available to everyone. Instead of writing a speech that makes liberalism look like some form of statism, I would've talked about the freedom that liberalism is actually about and not statism. But this for the most part was an excellent speech.

The Contender (2000)

Source:The Daily Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serial Killers Crime Biography: Angelo Buono & Kenneth Bianchi: The Hillside Stranglers

Source:The Daily Press

The Hillside Stranglers are two of the saddest people that this country has ever produced, because they were basically a couple of losers. Who didn't know right from wrong or didn't care and somewhat nuts in the sense, that they would be willing to do just about anything to get their pleasure. One of them was a Serial Murderer and the other was a Serial Rapist. 

The Buono-Bianchi victims would get raped and then murdered or the other way around, so these two losers could get their pleasure. With no sense of a conscience or should they even doing this, what are the consequences that could come from this. Or they simply didn't understand the concepts of these things, which made them even more dangerous. Because they could pretty much do anything, because they weren't worried about the results. 

Buono and Bianchi wouldn't care who would get hurt from it, even themselves and what would happen to them because of their actions. The only benefit from their stupidity, was they weren't very good at being criminals, in the sense that yes they could pull off their crimes, but were horrible at covering them up. So when they would murder and rape a women, and they would get tied to these crimes fairly early on.

Angelo Bono was a fairly intelligent man who could've been fairly successful in life and could've lived on his own. And been self-sufficient and he wouldn't of had to be a criminal to make it in life. But Kenneth Bianchi his cousin, was basically a born loser who barely learned how to read and write and was an outcast since childhood. And is one of these people if someone could've gotten to him early on in life and realized that this guy had some serious issues who needed help. 

Maybe Kenneth Bianchi's life turns out differently with an early intervention. And had his cousin Angelo not of hooked up with him, not had brought him into his home in Los Angeles, this murderous team probably never comes together, but of course we'll never know this and Ken Bianchi represents a typical prison Inmate. A criminal who enters prison as an ignorant man who couldn't make it in the free world, without the skills to survive as a non-criminal.

What gets me is how long the Hillside Stranglers were able to stay in business, for basically two years, from late 1977 to 1979. Because of who this team was, with one of them essentially being a moron. Which tells me that Angelo Bono being the intelligent member of this team, was probably the leader of it and perhaps the only one that had any control of Ken Bianchi before they were arrested.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'Center-Right Democrats & Insane Republicans'

Source:The Daily Press

Bill Maher has this idea that since there's a Democrat in the White House, that President Obama should govern like Dennis Kucinich. What he doesn't seem to understand, is that President Obama and Representative Kucinich come from two different factions of the party. Barack Obama comes from the adult realist faction of the party. Progressives and Liberals that see the world for what it is and try to make it the best that they can, with what's available to do so.

Dennis Kucinich comes from the dreamer utopian faction of the party, Socialist Hippies from the 1960s, and early 70s and today that haven't grown up. And see the World that they want to create apparently not realizing what's possible, but believe everything that they want is possible. And its possible now to turn America into Europe to create their Socialist Utopia. And you got these two competing factions, the adults with the power in the party that see the world for what it is and try to make it the best that they can, against the Hippies that want to see the world that they want now.

And if you support any policy thats different from what the Hippies want, you're some type of corporate sellout to the Republican Party or something. President Obama is like a father with his only real life family, as well as his kids in the Democratic Party. That help him run the party, plus with millions of adopted children that complain about not being able to have cake for dinner. And throw temper tantrums when they can't have cake for dinner or have to eat salad with their meat. And tell their parents they hate them when they can't stay up all night on a school night.

The Socialist Hippies (the Democratic children) in the party that doesn't have a great grasp on reality, that want everything now and doesn't understand what Hubert Humphrey called the "Art of the Possible". So the state of the Democratic Party right now a political party that I'm proud to be a member of is basically two parties and I believe within ten years could become officially two political parties. Which I believe would be good for both American liberalism and progressivism, as well as socialism giving each political movement their own voice.

You have the Liberal Democrats led by the President and the Congressional Democratic Leadership and the DNC. And then you have the Hippie Socialists again from the 1960s and early 70s. And want to bring that movement about today and create their own Socialist Utopia a perfect world. Where there's no wealthy or poor people, no violence, no war, give peace a chance. Everybody is equal, sounds like a decent Hollywood film or Hollywood fantasy. No bigotry, but the only problem that they have, is that they don't have a damn clue how to bring those things about. They tell the Leadership "this is what we want now go out there and accomplish that". Without having any idea of how to bring that about.

Hippy Democrats are like a head coach who wants to have the best team in the league. But doesn't know what type of system he wants on offense and defense, or what type of players he wants. Or how to write a game plan or run a practice, that these things are just details, right. Sounds more like a great fan than a successful head coach. And then leave it up to the Liberal Democrats the adults in the room to get the job done.

And when the Hippies accomplish some of those goals that the whole party supports, what's the thanks for the Democratic Leadership, they get called sellouts by their kids the Hippies. Who weren't even invited to the party because they probably would've thrown food or gotten into a fight. Its like giving your kid a corvette as their graduation present. But then getting called as asshole because you didn't give your son a Porche. Thats why the Liberal Democrats run the Democratic Party because they are the adults in the room.

Leathered Life: Sandra B Wearing a Leather Coat, Leather Jeans & Boots

Source:The Daily Press

Short, but sweet video of Sandra one of the leather models at the website Leathered Life. Which I'm not sure is even still in business or not. I haven't seen many videos or anything from them lately. But they were pretty hot in early 2009 when I got on YouTube and I checked out a lot of their videos when I got on YouTube. And a few of them are already on this blog and this will be another one. Lena is probably the only model that I really like there.

Sandra seems pretty sweet with a nice body, but Lena has everything including beauty and baby-face adorable looks. And a body that seems to be built for skinny jeans. Both denim and leather jeans with great curves. The women in the video looks good with the leather jeans and boots and certainly worth checking out. Which is why I'm posting this and her outfit is certainly sexy. But I've rather of seen a leather jacket like a biker jacket to go with the jeans and boots. Instead of a long coat.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Panel Talking About the U.S. Constitution

Source:The Daily Press

Unless you're a real Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian or perhaps even Independent, chances are you generally like the U.S. Constitution. If you're a so-called Progressive today Neoconservative or Christian-Theocrat, chances are you don't like the U.S. Constitution. Because it constricts you from doing what you want the Federal Government to do and make it bigger. 

Today's Progressives would like to see the Federal Government get so big to the point, that it would provide a lot of the services that the private sector and state and local governments currently provide. The 10th Amendment and Property Rights, makes that a lot more difficult for them to do that. As FDR found out during the New Deal back in the 1930s.  

So today's Progressives who are really European Social Democrats, they would like to rewrite the U.S. Constitution to give the Federal Government more power. Including taking out some Constitutional Amendments, like the 2nd Amendment the Right to Self-Defense. And perhaps even amend the First Amendment when it comes to the media. They would like to see a public media, not a "corporate Media" as they would call it. And even be able to regulate hate speech in America. 

As the Bush Administration found out, the U.S .Constitution got in their way when it came to indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. Neoconservatives would also like to amend the First Amendment so that it would only cover Freedom of Religion for Christians and political speech. Well that it is political speech, as long as the people are saying things they agree with. And would like to eliminate the Right of Privacy, the Fourth Amendment and perhaps a few others.

The Christian Right people I call Theocrats or better yet a religious cult, people who see marijuana as immoral, but have religious and political views that seem so out of space like they are on Fantasy Island and seem high on something illegal. Basically view people that don't live their lives as they do, they are immoral and should be in jail or something and would love to amend the First Amendment to outlaw adult entertainment. 

So the the Christian Right can censor certain forms of entertainment they don't like. Ban non-Christian religions and turn America into a Christian theocracy. Where life especially for women would become very restrictive with dress codes and that sort of thing. No more Right to Privacy, because now adultery and pre-marital sex, kids out of wedlock would be illegal. Pornography obviously illegal, alcohol and perhaps certain forms of dancing would be illegal. 

It would be like living in Iran but a Theocracy like this, would make Iran look like a liberal democracy. That only 1960s Hippies could dream up in one of their pipe dreams. So converted Progressives and ex-Libertarians like Bill Maher, should think twice about calling for a new U.S. Constitution, because he probably wouldn't like the results of it.  If Progressives want America to become like Scandinavia or Canada, then they need a new U.S. Constitution to achieve that. 

Today's Progressives would need a new Constitution to establish all the democratic socialism. And to give the Federal Government all of the power over us that they want to establish. If Neoconservatives want to make America like Russia, then they should move there or get into power and establish Martial Law, which is what happened in Egypt fifty years ago.

 If Theocrats want to make America like Iran, well they should move to Iran, because they aren't getting to the White House in America. No Presidential Candidate in America runs as a Theocrat and gets elected President. But for Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, we just need to defend, promote and speak up for the U.S. Constitution. To bring even more individual liberty than we already have.

ESPN: SportsCentury- Greatest Head Coaches

Source:The Daily Press

On this Thanksgiving and by the way Happy Thanksgiving to everyone out there, I thought it would be a great time to blog about Vince Lombardi, the greatest head coach of all-time, not just in football, but perhaps in team sports period. I think you'll have a hard time finding a better head coach because football is not just a huge part of our Thanksgiving holiday and Vince Lombardi is a big part of football. And the Green Bay Packers are a big part of our Thanksgiving football tradition. The Packers have played a lot on Thanksgiving and Coach Lombardi coached a lot of those games.

When I think of Vince Lombardi, I think of what a head coach should be when they are at their best and when they are the best at they are. Someone who constantly strives at making his team the best that they can, at getting the best effort and performance out of his team all of his players at the same time in the same game.

I mean if you look at it thats what the job of a head coach is, of course they want to win and the head coaches that do win are the successful head coaches, that is win more than they lose and a lot more than they lose. But really the job is to get the best performance out of your players that they can deliver. There have been teams that were 7-9, 8-8, 9-7 and of course missed the playoffs, but their head coach had a good year or a great year. They even had a great record that year because of the team that they had and the players that had to play.

The level of talent that they had to work with and there been teams that were 10-6, 11-5 but they didn't have very good seasons and didn't win championships even though they had the talent to, because their players didn't play very well as a team. They didn't work very well together, their head coach didn't get them to play as well as they could've. And they ended up basically having a mediocre or even a bad season because their head coach didn't get them to play as well as they could've. The job of the head coach is to get his team and all of his players to play as well as they can at the same time as one team and if he has a good team or a great team, like Chuck Knoll had with the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 1970s to use as an example, then that will lead to a lot of wins and championships. 

The Green Bay Packers of the 1960s didn't have a dynasty in that decade and were the team of the 60s Because they were loaded with talent and great players, they had some of those. And some Hall of Famers, they won five NFL Championships in seven years from 1961-67, because they had the best teams and the best head coach. Best team and best talent are two different things, best talent has to do with athletic ability and skills. Best team has to do with the team that plays the best together and plays the best as a team.

I'll give you an example, Super Bowl 36 between the New England Patriots and St. Louis Rams one of the biggest upsets in Super Bowl history, the Rams I believe were a 10-12 point favorite they still had that great Vertical Spread offense (as I call it) with Kurt Warner, Marshal Faulk and all of those WRs. The Patriots were 5-11 the year before, snuck into the playoffs in 2001, winning their division. Beat the Raiders in a blizzard in the famous tuck game and then upset a very good Steelers team in the AFC Final. They had to beat two better teams just to make to the Super Bowl.

The Rams clearly had batter talent in that Super Bowl, but the Patriots had a better team and played better together and of course they had head coach Bill Bellecheck, perhaps still the best head coach in the NFL. Thats what Vince Lombardi had in Green Bay in the 1960s, he had the best teams, not exactly the best talent when he won those championships. So to use my definition of the job of a head coach, then no one is better than Vince Lombardi at getting his teams and players to play the best that they can at the same time. And he is the best head coach of all-time, because he was the best motivator and perhaps the best motivator ever as well.

And he would put it simple, "you want to play for the Packers, you're going to give me everything you have, or find another job or team to play for". He knew when to ride someone and when to pride someone and do both of those things in a way that showed the player that he's just trying to get the best out of him, kinda like a great father would be. Thats what made Vince Lombardi the best ever at what he did. 

Helter Skellter (1976) The Story of The Manson Crime Family

Source:The Daily Press 

In 1976 there was a two-part TV mini-series I believe on CBS about the Manson Crime Family from the late 1960s and even after their leader Charles Manson was arrested in  late 1969 for his role in the Tate murders and other murders during the Manson Family murder spree from the summer of 1969,  a summer Los Angeles will never forget. The Manson Family was still in business so to speak in the early 1970s and even up to 1975 with Lynette Squeaky Frohm's attempt to assassinate President Gerald Ford.

And this mini-series was about the murders of the Manson Family in the Summer of 1969 and other business about the Manson Family. It was not a religious cult, there was some spirituality in it. But it was basically about a petty thief pimp career criminal who was never very good at staying out of prison. Who would get released from prison for the last time in the mid 1960s and work his way to the San Francisco area, pick up some girls in their late teens early 20s who ran away from home.

These were young adults late teens for the most part who seemed somewhat lost and build a family made up of high school and college dropouts. People that they believed were kissed off from society and Charlie Manson finally found a group of people that seemed like him, somewhat lost in the World. That didn't seem to fit in with mainstream society and he founded his soldiers that would take out their anger against mainstream society.

Charlie Manson wasn't intelligent in the sense that he was well educated, he didn't get through high school or make it to high school. He grew up in prison basically, in juvenile hall and probably didn't spend much time in school there. He never knew his father and his mother was a prostitute who didn't spend much time with her son and Charlie got moved around a lot as a kid. And probably didn't feel very loved, as an FBI profiler once said about Manson on NBC Dateline. "Charlie Manson is an example of what happens when we don't raise our kids well".

Society in a sense has some blame here for creating Charlie Manson. Not to excuse Manson because he's exactly where he belongs and will and should never leave prison. But society isn't innocent here in the creation of Charlie Manson. And what Manson had in his crime family were the people that would take out revenge for him against society. "If you were part of the establishment and successful in life, living in the Los Angeles area and they knew about you, you were a target of the Manson Family". To paraphrase Vince Bugliosi who prosecuted the Manson Family. Charlie wasn't stupid but he wasn't educated either.

Charlie Manson had talent to play and write music, but also to read people and know how they work and how he could work them up to the point where he could make people kill for him, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwenkell, Leslie Van Houten, Susan Atkins and others. And they found their targets in actress Sharon Tate, Karen Folger and others and killed them. The Manson Family murders were some of the worst murders ever committed. Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein would've been proud of these murders.

The Manson victims literally being stabbed and hanged to death in their own homes and their blood being spread around their homes. The Manson Family literally left their mark and were begging for the death penalty with their murders. And were given the Death Penalty before the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty in I believe 1973. The only reason why these serial murderers are alive today. Their lives being spared something they didn't do for their victims and they are the poster children for why we need to raise our kids well. And the Manson Crime Family had to be stopped for them to pay their debt to society. But to put them out of business so they couldn't strike again.

CSN Redskins Chronicles: Vince Lombardi's Impact on the Washington Redskins

Source:The Daily Press

In the 1960s the Redskins weren't bad at least starting around 1964 when they traded quarterback Norm Snead to Philadelphia for future Hall of Famer Sonny Jurgenson. They also picked up tailback/receiver Charlie Taylor who would also end up in the Hall of Fame and you could make a good case that he's the best WR of his era and of all time. And they picked up TB/WR Bobby Mitchell in 1962, who's also in the Hall of Fame. Drafted tight end Jerry Smith who should also be in the Hall of Fame. Drafted linebacker Chris Hamburger who just went in to the Hall of Fame. Hall of Fame LB Sam Huff was still there.

The Redskins weren't bad in the 1960s, but they weren't very good either, they only had one winning season, 1969 Vince Lombardi's only season in Washington and had several 7-7 seasons and a few 6-8 seasons, but they were building a lot of the success that the Redskins had in the 1970s started in the 1960s with the players that they drafted, including tailback Larry Brown in 1969 the Redskins first 1000 yard rusher. The Redskins had some of the best passing offenses in the NFL in the 1960s from 1964 and on, but they never had a solid running game until 1969 with Larry Brown.

But they also had some of the worst defenses in this decade unlike the 1970s and 80s when they were always in the top 10 in defense with George Allen and then Joe Gibbs where they win five NFC Finals from 1972-91 and three Super Bowls in that same period. Which is why Vince Lombardi and George Allen were so important for the Redskins to change the culture in how they operated.

When George Allen took over the Redskins in 1971 as head coach/general manager, I believe he knew he had a good nucleus, but that he had to add to it to make the Redskins a winner and contender. Which is what he did, he did not come to Washington from Los Angeles, where he was one game away from the Super Bowl a few times to have a 500 team or a team that barely has a winning record, but he wanted to build a champion win the NFC East, the NFC Final and the Super Bowl. He had very good teams with the Rams that always had one of the best defenses which was his background. He was George Halas's defensive coordinator with (da Bears) before he went to Los Angeles to be the Rams head coach.

His philosophy was simple. Tough take charge defense that takes away the run to attack the QB. Run the ball on offense, protect the QB and take a few shots down field on offense off of play-action and win the turnover battle. That if you do these things well you'll win much more than you lose and when he came to Washington that's what he wanted to establish. He knew he had a good group that he had to add a few pieces to make them winners and contenders,which is why he brought in some Rams, like defensive tackle Diron Talbert who reminds me a little of DT Dave Butz who Allen also brought to Washington. As well as linebacker Jack Pardee who would later be the Redskins head coach from 1978-80 and others. 

The Redskins in the George Allen era were nicknamed the "Over the Hill Gang", not because his players couldn't play anymore, but because most of them were in their thirty's when they got there. Or were going bald or were coming from teams, like QB Billy Kilmer's case that no longer wanted them and when you get released from the New Orleans Saints like Kilmer did in 1971 you are starting over and trying to find a place for yourself. Because the Saints were awful their first few years, but it all worked for Allen in Washington because he sold them on the idea that they are here to win. "Thats why I brought you here and kept you here to win and become champions". Something a lot of these players had never done before.

H Cosell Fan: 1972 Washington Redskins

Source:The Daily Press 

The 1972 Redskins didn't win the NFC Eastern Division Championship their first in thirty years or win the NFC Final their first in thirty years because they had overwhelming talent. They had very good talent with wide receivers Charlie Taylor, WR Roy Jefferson, tight end Jerry Smith and tailback Larry Brown. And on defense with people like defensive tackle Diron Talbert, linebacker Chris Hamburger, LB Jack Pardee and others, one of the best defenses in the NFL. I believe the best in the NFC that only gave up 217 points. They didn't accomplish these things because of great talent. They weren't the Cowboys Doomsday Defense, or the Vikings Purple People Eaters or the Rams Fearsome Foursome or the Steelers Steel Curtain.

They were a bunch of tough guys who could play who all had character, that all wanted to win and never were champions before. Thats why George Allen the Redskins head coach/general manager brought them to Washington to become champions. George Allen's whole philosophy was about the team, "how do I get forty men (as was the case back then) to play the best that they can and play together". (And I know this sounds corny)

But thats how George Allen operated. His favorite drink was milk probably because he didn't spend much time drinking other things or even thinking about other drinks that he liked, because he was all about his team. "How do I get them to play the best that they can and play together at the same time". And everything else including his family came after his team as his kids would tell you. In the 1960s the Redskins had a pass first explosive offense that was built around QB Sonny Jurgenson, WR Charlie Taylor, WR Bobby Mitchell and TE Jerry Smith. That didn't run the ball very well or play a lot of defense, sort of like the Miami Dolphins with Dan Marino in the 1980s.

But George Allen came from the Chicago Bears and Los Angeles Rams where they played tough defense always had one of the best defenses in the NFL. With ball control offenses so thats exactly what he wanted to establish in Washington, but the difference being that he was able to bring those defenders to Washington. Diron Talbert, Jack Pardee, but had a lot more offensive talent to go with his defense, which made the Redskins very explosive on both sides of the ball.

Allen inherited a team that was like 5-9 in 1970 the year Vince Lombardi died and took them to 10-4 and into the NFC Playoffs and 11-3 in 1972 as they won the NFC East, beat the Cowboys in the 1972 NFC Final, became NFC Champions. And went to Super Bowl 7 where they lost to the undefeated Miami Dolphins, but I believed the Redskins had the better team. The 1972 Redskins were a team that represent what a good team looks like, with star players, but other players on the team who are also good. But know their roles and everyone playing together and playing their roles.

George Allen was not perfect, the way he handled Sonny Jurgenson and Billy Kilmer and then later Joe Theisman. All three of them playing at the same time was a tragic mistake, that I believe cost him a championship. Sonny Jurgenson was clearly his best QB and should've led his teams until he retired instead of splitting time with Billy Kilmer. Who was at best a journeyman QB and a part-time starter and Joe Theisman should've replaced Jurgenson when Sonny retired. But George Allen's whole philosophy was built around "how to get the most out of my team at the same time to win as many games as possible" and he had a lot of success with that philosophy.

Rachel Maddow: Lewis Black On The Modern Republican Party

Source:The Daily Press

If you want to know what demagoguery, paranoia, exaggeration is, or what being obsess is, then just watch the Glen Beck Show or whatever he calls it now. Just don't ask me to help you spell those things. Because there you have it unless you're severely learning disabled, blind and death you'll get an excellent idea of what all of those things are. Glen Beck has a habit of taking minor things and making them look like tragedy's or crisis's, the exact type of person who shouldn't be President of the United States.

Glen Beck shouldn't be an executive in any other type of government because he lacks an even keel, the ability to see things as they are and not freak out about them. Like with the health care reform debate in 2009-10, where Glen Beck accused President Obama of hating Caucasian people because he wanted to tax tanning salons which I'm guessing is something that Mr. Beck doesn't use very often. Or may not even know where one is.

Which is like saying people who believe the Palestinians deserve their own state must mean that they hate the Jewish people which is nonsense .You need more to go on then just that. I've never taken Beck seriously and have chosen not to. I prefer to see him as a libertarian comedian which he is rather than some intelligent political analyst. I just prefer to do that before I label someone ignorant as a sack of bricks. Or has an IQ below freezing, makes both George W. Bush and Sarah Palin look like genius's. You can add Sarah Palin to that list with Rick Perry towards the top as far as new applicants.

I don't listen to Glen Beck very often except for on YouTube, I've made that decision. Because even though I find him to be funny, my level of tolerance for nonsense is very low. I have that same policy for a lot of the Republican Party right now except for their leadership and presidential candidates. Because as a blogger I feel the need to keep up to date with them. I've made the decision not to listen to a lot of these people, because the amount of what they don't know is enough to fill up the Rose Bowl in Pasadena a Stadium with 100K Seats. For all you non-sports fans like my mother.

Or as Ronald Reagan said, but about the Democrats, "they know so much that is not true". I do listen to what Beck has to say about progressivism and socialism, because he's funny when he goes off on them. And his facts tend to be pretty good, its just when he relates the entire Democratic Party with these politics he loses me like Chris Rock cracking a redneck joke at a KKK rally. Because again it gets back to his demagoguery and hyperbolic rants. When he speaks about things like that, he tends to be as off the mark as an auto mechanic giving a lecture on brain surgery. He tends to speak out of his ass which makes him funny because of how ignorant he is.

A lot of times when I hear Glen Beck speak, I think about George Carlin when he says that we can't blame our politicians. Because they are us, they come from the same places that we do. Schools churches, neighborhoods etc. He's as ignorant as a lot of people that send our politicians back to office. Or I think damn our education system really has fallen to have people like Glen Beck speaking about key issues and attracting followers.

John Kramer: Saturday Night Live GOP Presidential Debates

Source:The Daily Press

I can sum up the Republican presidential debates in several paragraphs or less, so I will. Mitt Romney- "vote for me because I can win" and his other slogan being, "if you're for it so am I". Newt Gingrich who I do take seriously as an intellectual until he says something thats provocative. But then realizes its unpopular and tries to get away from it. As long as he doesn't preach about moral values, "don't do because I've done it and I know from personal experience.

That some of these activities in life, well take adultery to use as an example are simply personally wrong. Its wrong which is why you shouldn't do it. (Even though I had a great time doing like having an affair with one of my staffers as Speaker of the House) When I was preaching about the moral decay of President Clinton". Newt Gingrich won't be up for Sainthood anytime soon, unless he pays to get in. And he is also unqualified to be a Monk, which may be why he's stopped preaching about moral values.

You have a classical Libertarian in Ron Paul, who apparently walked into a Republican Party one day, thinking he was at a Libertarian Convention. And hasn't found his way out of the Republican Party and is probably also unaware that he's at a party thats dominated by the Christian Right and Neoconservatives. And the Tea Party that at least part of them are in bed with the Religious Right and Neoconservatives. And are so warm there, that they can't get out of bed. Then there's John Huntsman and Gary Johnson who have no shot at the Republican nomination because they would both make excellent Liberal Democrats and they are both sane and that just aint going to cut it in today's GOP.

I would mention Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann, but like I said I could sum up the Republican presidential debates in a few paragraphs or less. And since I'm not a politician or running for public office, I can stick with positions I've already made. Other to say that they are both American citizens, born in America and 35 or older. (At least as far as I know) And besides I have nothing to say nice about either of them. Other than maybe Senator Santorum who I'll admit he's one of the most honest politicians I know of. And that is a complement in todays politics, its just that he knows so much that isn't true and actually believes in it.

Which would make Rick scary as a President and Michelle Bachmann just proves that even mental patients, even escaped mental patients are apparently qualified to run for President of the United States, or at least until they are recaptured. Rick Perry well when he decides what he believes and what his plans are for the country, I'll take a look at his presidential campaign. The man keeps teleprompter's in business by himself and with Herman Cain. Well his presidential campaign got suspended so now I would just be piling on. So what the hell, the man is not even qualified to pass a course on sexual harassment awareness. I'm not sure what the exact name for the course, I've never had to take it myself, let alone be President of the United States.

Thats the Republican presidential field of 2011-12, I know I'm thinking the same thing, "is that it". Where's Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, Dick Nixon, Gerry Ford, Ron Reagan Bob Dole. The problem is those people don't exist in the Republican Party anymore and wouldn't get the nomination for President in today's GOP. Because they wouldn't be trusted by Religious or Neo Right which is the problem for Mitt Romney. Who twenty years ago would've fit in perfectly in the GOP but because of the new GOP he has to say things just to please to them and say different things to different audiences