The John Birch Society: 'Solution To Big Government'

Source: The John Birch Society- Who is this? 

"Happy 4th of July! Today we'll discuss how Article VI of the Constitution is the best solution to reign in unconstitutional big government.:

Source:The John Birch Society

Keep in mind, this video is from The John Birch Society, which is sort of like The National Enquirer or The Star when it comes to political and governmental news. Not exactly award winning when it comes to news, because they tend to be made of antigovernment Libertarians and Far-Right conspiratorial Nationalists, who believe the 9/11 attacks were made up or an inside job, the CIA murdered President John F. Kennedy, etc, not exactly people with a good deal of judgement and perhaps even honesty.

Source: Renew America- Big Government, in need of Weight Watchers 

Having said all of that the speaker in this video ( whoever she is ) did make some good points about big government and the solutions to big government. I don't agree with her that current makeup of the U.S. Government is unconstitutional, misplaced and at least in some areas doing too much and overwhelmed and doing things that should be left up to the states, sure! But that's different from being constitutional or unconstitutional.

Source: Tenth Amendment Center- No to big government 

If you want to get rid of big government, you should at least know what it is. And I know what you're thinking, that sounds like some crazy commonsense that anyone with half of a brain could understand. But the two words big and government get thrown out a lot by people who think they know what they mean together, but in a lot of cases don't know what big government is and believe in a form of big government themselves and perhaps aren't even aware of that. So, before you bash big government, make sure you know what you're bashing. Which sounds as crazy as making sure your parachute works before you jump out of an airplane 20,000 feet in the air. But try it and you might see the benefits from that of actually knowing what you're talking about before you actually talk about it.

Source: Freedom and Prosperity- Say no to big government 

According to Wikipedia

"Big government is a term used to describe a government or public sector that is excessively large and unconstitutionally involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices.[1] The term has also been used in the context of the United States to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions—an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation.[2]"

Big government is not just government that's too big, because why is it too big in the first place, because it does too much and has too much authority in areas that should be left up to the states or localities, private sector, or involved in areas where it has no business being involved in, in the first place.

Like telling consensual adults who they can sleep it or live with.

Regulate how people communicate with each other because they're worried about people being offended.

Telling consensual adults who they can marry.

Or trying to prevent people from a certain religion from even entering the United States.

Telling people where they can get their health care and health insurance.

Taxing people to the point where it makes it hard for them to run their business or even pay their bills on their own, because their taxes are too damn high. ( Pun intended )

These are all examples of big government which is government either doing too much or being involved in areas where no level of government should be involved in the first place like being involved in free adults private affairs and lives.

So, now that we know what big government looks like let's then look at how we get it and can get more of it. The easy answer to that and something that a layman might say would be that big government comes from our politicians and the government itself. Well, that would be partially true, but that would be like saying food comes from the grocery stores, but without farms growing and producing the food that we eat, the grocery stores wouldn't have food to sell at all.

Big government doesn't come from our politicians and government officials, but where do they come from? To paraphrase the great political satirist George Carlin, they didn't just suddenly appear from Mars or the Moon, they came from the communities and states that elected them. In order words big government comes from the people who vote for the politicians who support big government and then back it while they're in office. If a solid majority of people in a community, state or country wants big government, then that's exactly what the people will get in a representative democracy, at least until it gets thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, if you don't like big government and don't want it, I have another commonsense solution for you which might give you more reason to believe that I'm not only crazy but have my very own mental institution or at least ward that was built just for me and others who also believe in commonsense. If you don't want or like big government, don't support it, don't vote for it, and campaign against it. Know the people you're considering for public office before you actually vote for them. ( Another commonsense solution )

No more blind voting and vote for people that share your political and national values, instead of voting for people who you think sound cool or look hip. Vote for people who actually represent your values and if that means you believe in individual freedom and free choice and you do your homework, you're going to vote for people who believe in those things as well and against big government. And as a result you'll get less big government in the process.

Liberty Pen: 'Charles Krauthammer- Insights on Big Government'

Source:Liberty Pen- Syndicated columnist & Fox News political commentator Charles Krauthammer.

"Like many conservatives, Charles Krauthammer started out on the left. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

At risk of stating obvious ( not that I've never taken that risk before ) and I feel in this case it might be necessary since the term big government gets thrown out a lot I believe it's necessary to define exactly what big government is and what it isn't. Because it means a lot to everyone and to some people like Socialists and Communists, big government doesn't exist at all to them because they believe in unlimited government in many cases.

And for Anarchists (or people who call themselves Anarcho-Libertarians) big government to them is government that tries to do anything without their direct personal consent and permission. So it's important to explain exactly what big government is and what it isn't first and then Charles Krauthammer second.

To put it simply: big government is government that does or tries to do too much. And if that is not simple enough, I suggest that maybe you have issues with the English language and perhaps need a translator to follow along. 

Examples of big government:

Government attempting to run private industries and nationalizing private businesses are examples of big government.

Government telling free adults who they can consensually live and sleep with would be examples of big government like these so-called sodomy laws that attempt to outlaw homosexuality.

Government telling people who much they can eat and drink or what they can eat and drink, these nanny state laws would be examples of big government.

Government telling people where they can send their kids to school, would be an example of big government.

Government telling people where they can and can't get their health care and health insurance and trying to outlaw health care and health insurance in the private sector, would be examples of big government in America, even if Britain likes that type of health care system for themselves.

Government trying to outlaw law clearly constitutionally protected forms of free speech and expression. Like critical speech, hate speech even, pornography, certain forms of music and music videos that have a lot of adult content in them, TV shows and movies with adult content. Political correctness is a form of big government, when it comes from government itself.

Big government is government that tries to do too much for the people and do for the people that they can do for themselves and do better for themselves. Like deciding where to send their kids to school and how to educate them, where to get their health care and health insurance, how to plan their retirement and manage their money, including investing their money or even gambling their money.

Government outlawing consensual sexual conduct where money even is exchanged like anti-prostitution laws, to me at least as a Liberal ( Classical Liberal, if you prefer ) are big government laws and anti-free choice laws.

What Charles Krauthammer, was talking about here in this video when he was talking about big government like the Great Society are public safety net programs. Social insurance programs that are only there for people who are low-income and don't outlaw any private economic or personal activity, aren't big government laws or programs, but social insurance programs for people who are low-income.

Safety net  programs don't make anything illegal or even make any form of consensual activity illegal, but give financial assistance to people who are in poverty even if they're also working.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Nadine Strossen- Free Speech & Personal Liberty

Source: The Rubin Report- Former ACLU President Nadine Strossen -

Source: The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Nadine Strossen- Free Speech & Personal Liberty

This debate about liberty versus equality as if that is a real choice which it isn't and I'll get into that later, reminds me of a speech that longtime Chicago University Economics Professor Milton Friedman, who described his own politics as liberal ( or classical liberal if you prefer ) gave a speech in 1978 and he talked about liberty in equality in the same speech and made the point to put it simply that you can't have one without the other.

Source: The Rubin Report- Former ACLU President Nadine Strossen

That without liberty and the ability for people make their own decisions and go as far as they can go on their own and make as good a life that they can for themselves, you can't have equality at least in the sense that most if not all people want equality which is that everyone living and doing well in society and not being denied access in life simply because of their race, ethnicity, or gender. Sure! You could essentially outlaw wealth and have the central government collect most of the wealth in society and then try to spread that wealth back to the people based on what they believe people need to do well.

Source: Conservative Video News- Dave Rubin & Nadine Strossen

But when you discourage people to do well and be successful you get a lot less of it, because people will expect the government to take care of them, or they'll believe it's not worth it to be free and successful in life because government will just punish then for that by taking most of their wealth from them. Or you could have government just outlaw individual initiative and creativity and just have government try to run the economy for everyone like you would see in a Marxist-Communist state and have a country where everyone is poor like in North Korea and a society where only people with government jobs and connections are able to live well.

But when people talk about equality, they tend to talk about it in a sense where everyone is able to live well. Not where everyone is equally poor, but where people are able to succeed in life and live well. And for true equality to occur you have to have good deal of personal liberty and the freedom for people to do well and be able to make their own decisions in life and then be able to collect the rewards from their success. Which comes with investments, risk taking, and even failures.

As far as the main point of Nadine Strossen's book ( former President of the ACLU ) a woman that I have a lot of respect for and who I love politically for her liberal politics, she's just damn right about this. You way to counter hate speech is not trying to shut it up through force, but by counteracting it through intelligent free speech. Make the case for why some hateful asshole is exactly that and why what they believe is hateful.

But when the First Amendment was written, our Founding Fathers ( the Founding Liberals ) didn't have in mind protecting the rights for intelligent Ivy Leaguers to say whatever they want and have the freedom to say as many intelligent things as possible. Even though the First Amendment protects intelligent speech and love as much as hate speech.

The First Amendment was written for people who think outside of the box and say controversial things. Even to the point that they're not just criticizing people, but saying things that can be hurtful. And even saying things that are hateful, but just plain wrong like labeling an entire ethnic or racial group as criminals, invaders, rapists, etc. And perhaps you're familiar with a certain national politician who has done those things in the last few years.

I can't end this piece without talking about personal liberty here as well since that it part of the title of the piece. There is so such thing as freedom without personal liberty. Not just talking about economic freedom which is also critical in any liberal democratic free society, but also the freedom for people to think and say what they want short of inciting violence and falsely accusing people, or harassing people. But the freedom for people to make their own personal and private decisions and live their own lives and do what they want to do, short of hurting innocent people with what they're doing. Freedom of choice and the right to privacy which I believe as a non-lawyer protects freedom of choice in America and engage in activities that some religious folks might see as immoral, is just as important as our economic freedom and right to free speech.

Thames TV: Looks Familiar With Denis Norden- Diana Dors, Larry Grayson & Farley Granger: From 1982

Source: Thames TV- Farley Granger, Larry Grayson & Diana Dors, in 1982.

"Clips taken from Thames TV's 'Looks familiar'  featuring actors Farley Granger, Diana Dors and comedian Larry Grayson. In these segments the stars talk about their favorite films and what they thought of Hollywood.
First shown: 26/04/1982."

Source: IOffer- English Muffin Diana Dors, this is your life 

From Thames TV

Speaking of Hollywood parties which is what they're talking about here, there was a famous Hollywood party involving Diana Dors and her then husband Dennis Hamilton, who sort of acted as Diana's agent back in the 1950s. Diana Dors and actor Rod Steiger, worked in the Hollywood movie The Unholy Wife from 1956 and her husband Dennis and Teasy-Weasy Raymond ( no joke, that's the real name ) put together a launch party for The Unholy Wife at Raymond's Hollywood home in 1956. A lot of great Hollywood people were there including Doris Day, Lana Turner, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Ginger Rogers, and many others, as well as Diana Dors who was just getting her start in Hollywood.

From Wikipedia

Source: IOffer- English Muffin Diana Dors, this is your life 

It was very crowded around the pool and Diana and her husband and others, got pushed in the pool. Hamilton not being the ready for prime-time player that he was, the man wasn't even a Hollywood agent and was sort of Hollywood's version of an assistant tennis pro who survived only on his ability to get wealthy women like Diana to help him and take care of him. The man was a career amateur who thought more of himself than he ever was, gets up out of the pool and decks a photographer that was covering this scene. Hamilton and his adorable gorgeous wife Diana, naturally are kicked out of the party and by all intents and purposes are kicked out of Hollywood.

But Diana goes back to England and is pretty much never heard from again in Hollywood, which was fine with her but a huge loss for the American movie and entertainment audience that would've loved to have her working her for the next 30 plus years. Because she really was a great entertainer and not just great to look at. A helluva actress, who was very funny and was a very good singer as well, but other than Richard Dawson had a bad habit of marrying men who couldn't take care of themselves and were very needy and lacking in ability and needed her to take care of them.

Who knows, had Diana left her husband with a babysitter and went to the party by herself that night, that scene with her and others getting dumped in the pool accidentally might have still happened, the difference being that Diana was a pro and grownup ( unlike her husband Dennis Hamilton ) and would've handled it professionally and got out of the water and there would've been people there to help her dry off and sent to a bedroom to change and everything else and life would've moved on and perhaps Diana Dors has a great career in Hollywood, instead of a very short but memorable career. But this is one of those things that we'll just never know.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post on FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

David Stockman: ‘Today’s Pathetic GOP: Talks Like Barry Goldwater, Spends Like LBJ’

Source:The New Democrat- Mr. Conservative U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater.

Source:The New Democrat

“Here is the portrait of a dysfunctional party: On Tuesday, the House Republicans unveiled a budget that set a goal of spending cuts totaling $6,454 billion. On Wednesday, Senate Republicans defeated legislation to cut spending by $1 billion. On Thursday, House Republicans voted to renew $20 billion per year in farm subsidies.

The 2018 GOP talks like Barry Goldwater and spends like Lyndon Johnson.”

"Former Budget Director under President Reagan David Stockman plays the word association game on "Bloomberg ‹GO›." 

From David Stockman

Source:Bloomberg News- David Stockman was President Ronald W. Reagan's Budget Director.

From Bloomberg News 

"Reaganomics (/reɪɡəˈnɒmɪks/; a portmanteau of Reagan and economics attributed to Paul Harvey),[1] or Reaganism, were the neoliberal[2][3][4] economic policies promoted by U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. These policies are characterized as supply-side economics, trickle-down economics, or "voodoo economics" by opponents,[5] while Reagan and his advocates preferred to call it free-market economics.

The pillars of Reagan's economic policy included increasing defense spending, balancing the federal budget and slowing the growth of government spending, reducing the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reducing government regulation, and tightening the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[6]

The results of Reaganomics are still debated. Supporters point to the end of stagflation, stronger GDP growth, and an entrepreneurial revolution in the decades that followed.[7][8] Critics point to the widening income gap, what they described as an atmosphere of greed, reduced economic mobility, and the national debt tripling in eight years which ultimately reversed the post-World War II trend of a shrinking national debt as percentage of GDP." 

Source:Wikipedia- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) 40th President of the United States

From Wikipedia 

David Stockman’s line about today’s GOP talking like Barry Goldwater, but spending like Lyndon Johnson, reminds me of Max Boot’s line from his column in The Washington Post yesterday, where he said the Republican Party use to be a conservative party with a nationalist fringe and now they’re a nationalist party with a conservative fringe. Max Boot is a conservative himself and use to be a Republican as well and he made that comment about the modern Republican Party. Well, today Barry Goldwater ( assuming he would be a Republican today ) would be part of that conservative fringe in the Republican Party that is dominated by Caucasian Nationalists, primarily Anglo-Saxon Caucasian Nationalists whose families have been in America since the 1700s for the most part.

The Republican Party, has become a fringe party but not a fringe conservative party. We’re not talking about a party that wants to eliminate the safety net and blow up the New Deal and Great Society. The average Republican voter wants their Social Security, Medicare, and every other government social program and tax credit that they’re entitled to including farm subsidies and other corporate welfare. They just don’t want people who don’t look like them whose families haven’t been in America as long as in some cases are first generation Americans or immigrants themselves, who don’t come from Britain, to collect from those programs that Trump voters collect from.

As much as today’s Tea Party Trumpian Nationalist Republican Party, bashes Food Assistance and other Welfare programs, the overwhelming majority of Americans who collect from those Welfare programs come from Trump states. The Bible Belt, Great Plains, states like Kentucky, West Virginia, all states with high levels of poverty and populations who are eligible for government Welfare in order to help them survive. So when these voters bash these Welfare programs, they’re not so much bashing the programs them self, but people who don’t look like them who also collect from those programs. People from inner cities and places with high levels of poverty in urban America.

In other words, the modern Republican Party, is not a conservative party. They’re Donald Trump’s reality TV nationalist tribalist fascist party, that looks down at anyone who doesn’t look at America the way they do and share their religious and cultural values as Un-American not deserving of the same constitutional rights and privileges as people who voted for Donald Trump and still support him, who’ll defend President Trump at any cost short of going to prison .( Like in Michael Cohen’s case )

Instead of believing in fiscal responsibility and that deficits not only matter but that government is too big, the Republican Party now lives with deficits and are comfortable with size and spending of the U.S. Government, because they don’t want to cut programs that benefit Trump voters. Instead of being tough on dictators and authoritarians, President Trump and his supporters embrace them and embrace the Vladimir Putin’s of the world, because they like authoritarians and authoritarianism and are not fans of democracy. The conservative wing of the Republican Party, is not dead, but they’re on political life support and have now become the fringe wing of a national fascist Republican Party.

David Stockman as he told Bloomberg News, which is linked on this post, said Reaganomics in 1981 was, cutting taxes across the board deeply, while at the same decreasing government spending overall, while increasing the defense budget to win the Cold War against Russia, and deregulating American industry across the board. 

But the reason why Stockman told Bloomberg News that Reaganomics would've worked, if tried, because all the Reagan Administration did in the 1980s was cut taxes deeply across the board and increase defense spending. But the U.S. Government, as well as deficits and the national debt, ballooned under President Reagan in the 1980s. They inherited a 40 billion dollar deficit from President Jimmy Carter in 1981 and gave incoming President George H.W. Bush a 200 billion dollar deficit, when the Reagan's left office in 1989. 

It wasn't just defense spending that ballooned during the Reagan Administration. The Department of Justice to deal with the Reagan expansion of the War On Drugs in the 1980s, rising crime rates, as well as immigration. 

The overall Federal budget ballooned during the Reagan years and so did the deficit and debt. So much for fiscal conservatism, even if you want to Ronald Reagan an economic Conservative, which he was. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

FOX News: Kirsten Powers VS Charles Krauthammer On Neoconservatism

Source:Andrew Yezen- Then Fox News political analyst, Kirsten Powers.

“Kirsten Powers: Charles Krauthammer knows he’s a Neocon. Sign the petition to arrest Marxist collaborator Marco Rubio at:MofoPolitics.com.”

Source:Andrew Yezen 

"Political analysts Kirsten Powers and Charles Krauthammer got into a tense exchange last week, arguing over the definition of the term "neocon."

Krauthammer asserted on the Fox News "Special Report" panel that the term is meaningless and challenged someone to provide a definition for it.

"Charles, you know what a neocon is," Powers told him. "I mean, this is kind of silly—."

"It is not," contributor Steve Hayes interjected." 

Source:The Blaze- Kirsten Powers vs. Charles Krauthammer 

From The Blaze

“In a post-show discussion posted online, Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” got heated when Kirsten Powers called out fellow panel regular Charles Krauthammer for being a pro-war neoconservative. Krauthammer denies it and Steve Hayes goes on the attack.” 

Source:Real Clear Politics- then Fox News political analyst Kirsten Powers in 2015.

From Real Clear Politics

From Dictionary on neoconservatism: "relating to or denoting a return to a modified form of a traditional viewpoint, in particular a political ideology characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy."  

"Neoconservatism is a political movement that began in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party and with the growing New Left and counterculture of the 1960s, particularly the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society. Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength, and are known for espousing disdain for communism and political radicalism." 

From Wikipedia 

Kirsten Powers, even though it took her a while to get there, definition of Neoconservative is pretty good: "Someone who is very hawkish on foreign policy and national security and believes in using American military force to advance democracy around the world." 

And yes, Neoconservatives gave us the 2003 Iraq War because they wanted democracy to come to Iraq. And as it turns out weapons of mass destruction, was really just an excuse for sending America to war in Iraq. The real Neoconservative objective here was to eliminate the Saddam Hussein Regime and replace it with an American friendly, democratic government and state. 

Kirsten Powers, also made another good point here when she says that Charles Krauthammer knows he's a Neocon. Krauthammer is one of the fathers of the American modern neoconservative movement. Former Liberal Democrats, (meaning people who believe in liberal democracy) who are very hawkish on foreign policy and national security. They're still let's say, right-progressive on economic policy as far as what they believe that government should do as it relates to the economy and helping people in need help themselves and believe in things like the a public safety net, but that the safety net should just be there for people who truly need it. And aren't Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists ( people like Bernie Sanders ) who believe that public social insurance programs should be universal.

It's weird to see Charles Krauthammer denying his neoconservatism and that he's a Neoconservative, because again Krauthammer is one of the original Neoconservatives in America. But it was also great to see Kirsten Powers call him out on that just flatly say that he knows he's a Neoconservative. She literally called ( excuse my language ) bullshit on him and did it on national TV.

My simple definition of a Neoconservative is someone who is a Right-Progressive. Someone who is not anti-government and believes in the safety net and a basic regulatory state and things like equal rights. But who isn't a Social Democrat and puts real limits on what government should try to do for people and is very hawkish on national security, foreign policy, and law enforcement. What they were talking about in this segment, had to do with Neoconservatives as it related to national security and foreign affairs, but there's a broader political philosophy to neoconservatism.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

Super Cousins: The Facts Of Life- 'Jo & Blair: Hot N Cold'

Source:Super Cousins- Jo & Blair: best friends?

"*I DO NOT OWN ANYTHING, ALL COPYRIGHTS TO THE OWNERS*
I love this song and friendship between Jo and Blair
and I made a video of good times with them. "

From Super Cousins

How do you describe the relationship of two young women which is what Blair Warner ( played by Lisa Whelchel ) and Jo Polniaczek ( played by Nancy McKeon ) were on The Facts of Life, going to high school at Eastland and then going to college together at Langley, how do you describe a relationship between two young women who on the outside you would almost have to think that these two women hate each other and yet it's hard to see a time or point when they would ever be separated.

If you're familiar with the movie Who's Afraid of Virginian Woolf with Richard Burton and Elisabeth Taylor, they played a married couple who've been married a long time and they have two guest's over during the movie and Dick and Liz are always arguing with each other in the movie. With the second couple noticing all of this and thinking they should go because their hosts are obviously fighting and arguing and would perhaps would like to be left alone. With Dick & Liz saying, "you don't have to go because this is how we normally communicate with each other."

I sort of look at Blair Warner and Jo Polnicczek as a married couple who've been together let's say 30 years and perhaps haven't been married that long and know each other so well and know each other's weaknesses and strengths and then represent the opposite of what the other stands for and believes in and know how to exploit that and yet would always be the first one to help or comfort the other when the other is in trouble and going through a rough time.

As hard as this is to believe for anyone who is not a hardcore fan of The Facts of Life and just watches casually, Blair and Jo really were best friends on the show. I think they were really the only great and true friend that the other had on the show. Even though they were always riding each other on the show. They were the first to back up the other when someone was giving one of them a hard time, to to offer advice when they were going through a rough time. Generally critical advice and pointing out their flaws while at the same time offering them advice in how to improve.

You can claim you hate someone all you want, but you don't try to prevent someone you claim to hate or act like you hate from making the biggest mistake in their life. Like dropping out of high school to marry a man who isn't even a junior officer in the U.S. Navy and not an officer at all, who is also AWOL ( absent without leave ) but that is exactly what Blair did for Jo when Jo decided that she wanted to drop out of Eastland to marry her Navy boyfriend. And that is just one example of Blair and Jo coming to the rescue of the other.

The Facts of Life was a great show and I believe the best sitcom at least about Generation X. At least the best show about that generation growing up and what life was like back in the 1980s as a youngster and teenager, but without Blair and Jo and I would argue without Lisa Whelchel and Nancy McKeon, and Mrs. Garrett ( played by Charlotte Rae ) keeping the crew together perhaps especially Blair and Jo, it's a good show but not a great show.

Those two women and perhaps Mrs. Garrett as well, brought people to show and to watch it. Sort of like a great soap opera where you have two great rivals on that show and people tune in every week or day to see what they might do to each other, Blair and Jo and I would argue Lisa Whelchel and Nancy McKeon just by themselves put people in the seats every week ( to use a sports analogy ) or had them tuning in every week to see what they would do next and what they would do to each other next. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.