C-SPAN: Senator John McCain On Senator Rand Paul: 'The Senator From Kentucky is Now Working For Vladimir Putin'

Source:CSPAN- U.S. Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)

"Senator John McCain (R-AZ) on Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) following the Senator's objection to a bill advancing Montenegro’s bid to join NATO. "The Senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin." Full Senate session here:C-SPAN." 

From C-SPAN

Just to give you a little background on this relationship (if you want to call it that) between Senator John McCain and Senator Rand Paul: (Republican, Kentucky) they seriously dislike and disrespect each other. Oh, you want more. Well, I'll give it to you anyway. 

Senator John McCain comes from a longline of center-right, Neoconservatives in the Republican Party, going back to the 1960s, if not further, people who at one point in some cases, were Liberal Democrats. (Meaning people who believe in liberal democracy) Even though the so-called mainstream media like to call these Republicans moderates today, McCain has never been a moderate. 

John McCain has always been a Neoconservative, especially on foreign policy and national security, but on economic policy as well. Teddy Roosevelt is one of the most famous Progressive Republicans ever, was one of McCain's political heroes. And Neoconservatives, look like Progressive Republicans, at least today.

Rand Paul, at least when he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010, was a Conservative Libertarian, who is fairly dovish and isolationist on foreign policy and national security, like most Libertarians. And since his failed presidential run of 2016, it occurred to him that he represents Kentucky, which is like the capital of Redneckistan in the MAGA movement in the country and now sounds and acts like MAGA Nationalist Republican. And those folks are to the opposite of the Neoconservative center-right in the Republican Party and are competing factions. 

So of course Senator McCain was in favor of letting Montenegro join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 2017, because they were under attack by Russia and Vladimir Putin wants them to be part of his new Slavic empire that he has dreamed up for himself. 

And of course Senator Paul is against this, because he doesn't believe America should be in the business of defending the freedom and democracy of other countries. And since Vladimir Putin is a hero of MAGA, he doesn't believe (at least publicly) that America should be in the business to confront Vladimir Putin, because that could hurt him politically at home in Kentucky.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Basketball Time Machine: 'NBA Legends Explain How Larry Bird Made Everyone Look Back'

Source:Basketball Time Machine- The Worm Dennis Rodman on Larry Legend Bird.

"Larry Bird, Larry Bird clutch plays, Larry Bird highlights, Larry Bird NBA Legends, larry bird passes, larry bird 2022,

Michael Jordan, Michael Jordan highlights, Michael Jordan larry bird, Michael Jordan top 50, Larry Bird trash... 

From Basketball Time Machine

Dennis Rodman: "If Larry Bird Played In This Era, I Think He'd Be In Europe" Dennis Rodman doesn't think Larry Bird would excel in today's NBA." That from Sports Illustrated. 

With all due respect to Dennis Rodman, who I consider to be the greatest NBA outside defender ever and perhaps the greatest all around defensive player in the NBA history, (who I don't respect much as a person) he's dead wrong about Larry Bird and he probably knows that. Maybe he just made that statement because he's having a hard time dealing with the fact that a good ole boy, the so-called hick from French Lick, a "white boy, cracker, honkey, etc" routinely embarrassed him on the court and maybe he's just saying that to appease the so-called brothers and his fans. 

Dennis Rodman could guard Earvin Johnson, Michael Jordan, Dominique Wilkins, James Worthy, Adrian Dantley, Mark Aquirre, Charles Barkley, if he played Dr. J Julius Erving, he could've guarded Doc very well in his prime as well. But Larry Bird lit up Dennis his first four seasons in the NBA, except for 1989 when Bird missed most of that season because he broke his foot and the last two season's of Bird's career, he was dealing with a bad back. 

Something you have to know about entertainers, athletes, and politicians: (and Dennis Rodman's case, who qualifies for all three) what they say publicly, is not always what they say and believe privately. Publicly, if their fans and popularity are very important to them financially, they'll speak a different game than what they actually believe. And I think that's the case with Dennis Rodman. But I'm not a mindreader.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

C-SPAN: The Contenders - Thomas Dewey (2011)

Source:C-SPAN- presidential historian Richard N. Smith, talking about the life & career of Thomas E. Dewey.

"C-SPAN continues its series "The Contenders" LIVE on Friday, October 28 at 8:00 p.m. ET with Thomas Dewey. In this clip, Presidential Historian Richard Norton Smith, Goucher College History Professor Jean Baker and Washington Editor of Real Clear Politics Carl Cannon discuss Dewey. More information on the series can be found here:C-SPAN." 

From C-SPAN

"Dewey led the moderate faction of the Republican Party during the 1940s, and 1950s, in opposition to conservative Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft. Dewey was an advocate for the professional and business community of the Northeastern United States, which would later be called the Eastern Establishment. This group consisted of internationalists who were in favor of the United Nations and the Cold War fight against communism and the Soviet Union, and it supported most of the New Deal social-welfare reforms enacted during the administration of Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Dewey served as the 47th governor of New York from 1943 to 1954. In 1944, he was the Republican Party's nominee for the presidency, but lost the election to incumbent Franklin D. Roosevelt in the closest of Roosevelt's four presidential elections. He was again the Republican presidential nominee in 1948, but lost to President Harry S. Truman in one of the greatest upsets in presidential election history.[1] Dewey played a large role in winning the Republican presidential nomination for Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, helping Eisenhower win the presidential election that year.[2] He also played a large part in the choice of Richard Nixon as the Republican vice-presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956.[3] He was the first major party nominee for president of the Greatest Generation, and the first to have been born in the 20th century.

Following his political retirement, Dewey served from 1955 to 1971 as a corporate lawyer and senior partner in his law firm Dewey Ballantine in New York City. In March 1971, while on a golfing vacation in Miami, Florida, he died from a heart attack. Following a public memorial ceremony at St. James' Episcopal Church in New York City, Dewey was buried in the town cemetery of Pawling, New York." 

Source:Wikipedia- Thomas E. Dewey (Republican, New York)

From Wikipedia

If you want to know what kind of politician that Thomas Dewey was ideologically, I'll tell you anyway. Think about people who are tough on serious crimes and criminals, people who represent real threats to any free society, like America, who are tough on communism and other authoritarian ideologies, who believe in free enterprise, opportunity and responsibility for all, as well as freedom for all, that liberal democracy is the best form of government, civil and equal rights and justice for all, fiscal responsibility, the best government is the government that's closest to home, that's Tom Dewey. 

Tom Dewey was a Northeastern Republican from the 1930s and 40s and into the 1950s and that was the Republican Party pre-Christian-Right of the late 1960s and into the 1970s. Back then, the Republican Party was a party of basically two center-right factions: a Progressive faction form the Northeast and to a certain extent of the West Coast and a Classical Conservative faction from the Midwest and the Mountain West. They became a national party when the Christian-Right and other parts of the Far-Right came into the party in the late 1960s and into the 1970s. 

In the mid-20th Century, the Republican Party was the party of the Tom Dewey's, Dwight Eisenhower's, Nelson Rockefeller's, Bill Scranton's, George Romney's, and yes Richard Nixon's, who ideologically, was a Cold War, center-right Progressive Republican. 

The Republican Party also had a center-right Conservative faction in this same timer period, led by people like Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater. 

The Republican Party was a real center-right party, perhaps not just of America, but perhaps the rest of the western world as well, when Far-Right people like the John Birch Society and others, were treated like escaped political mental patients, not like main street populist Republicans, the way they're treated today. And Tom Dewey was their leader in 1944 and 48, while he was also the Governor of New York. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNN: ‘Former Manson Family Member Leslie Van Houten Released From California prison, Official Says’

Source:CNN- convicted two-time murderer Leslie Van Houten, will get to walk away from prison as a free woman. Even though her two victims are still dead.

Source:The New Democrat

“Leslie Van Houten, a former Charles Manson follower and convicted murderer, was released from a California prison on Tuesday, a prison spokesperson told CNN.

Van Houten was released to parole supervision, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesperson Mary Xjimenez said. Van Houten will have a three-year maximum parole term with a parole discharge review occurring after one year, Xjimenez said.

FILE – In this Sept. 6, 2017, file photo, Leslie Van Houten attends her parole hearing at the California Institution for Women in Corona, Calif. On Tuesday, March 29, 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom blocked parole for Charles Manson follower Van Houten, reversing a panel’s recommendation that she be freed after spending a half-century in prison. (Stan Lim/Los Angeles Daily News via AP, Pool, File)

Manson family member Leslie Van Houten parole reversed for the fifth time

Van Houten, now in her 70s, was 19 when she met Manson and joined the murderous cult that came to be called the “Manson family.”

Prior to her release on Tuesday, she was serving concurrent sentences of seven years to life after she was convicted in 1971 for her role in the killings of supermarket executive Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary, at their Los Angeles home.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office on Friday announced it would not challenge a state appellate court’s panel ruling in May that opened the possibility of parole for Van Houten, clearing the path to her release.

“More than 50 years after the Manson cult committed these brutal offenses, the victims’ families still feel the impact, as do all Californians. Governor Newsom reversed Ms. Van Houten’s parole grant three times since taking office and defended against her challenges of those decisions in court,” Erin Mellon, a spokesperson for the governor, said Friday.

“The Governor is disappointed by the Court of Appeal’s decision to release Ms. Van Houten but will not pursue further action as efforts to further appeal are unlikely to succeed. The California Supreme Court accepts appeals in very few cases, and generally does not select cases based on this type of fact-specific determination,” Melton said.

A family member of celebrity hair stylist Jay Sebring, who was killed by the Manson cult in 1969, said he disagrees with the decision by the governor’s office to not challenge Van Houten’s parole.

“I certainly have respect for Governor Newsom and the attorney general,” Sebring’s nephew, Anthony DiMaria, told CNN’s Laura Coates on Tuesday night. “But our families strongly, vehemently, disagree with their decision not to file an appeal.”

DiMaria called Van Houten a “cold-blooded killer in one of the most notorious murder rampages in United States history,” and said her release sets a “dangerous, pernicious precedent.”

Van Houten’s attorney, Nancy Tetreault, told CNN’s John Berman Tuesday night that her client has “gone through courses to confront what she did – to take responsibility for what she did,” along with “40 years of psych evaluation” to gain parole.

“I understand why … the family members of the victims feel emotional about this and want retribution, but that’s not the law,” Tetreault told Berman. “The law says she has the right to achieve parole if she meets the standard, and the standard is that she no longer poses a danger to society.”

Tetreault said she’s not trying to prove that Van Houten is innocent, but rather emphasizes that Van Houten “has to, and has, accepted full responsibility for the crime.”

Following 53 years in custody, Van Houten will participate in a transitional housing program to help her with employment training, teach her how to get a job and support herself, Tetreault told CNN last week.

“If you think about it, she’s never used an ATM, never had a cell phone,” Tetreault said last week. The attorney told CNN she and her client have discussed the likelihood of her being overwhelmed as she transitions back to routine daily activities, such as going to the supermarket.

Van Houten will seek employment that builds on the bachelor’s and master’s degrees in humanities that she earned while in prison, the attorney said. But for now, she’s just getting acclimated.

“She said that she’s just trying to get used to the idea that she’s no longer in prison after all these decades, and just acclimate to her new life outside of prison,” Tetreault said Tuesday.

Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten, shown walking to court to appear for their roles in the murders.

Leslie Van Houten, Manson Family member, recommended for parole

Following her conviction, Van Houten was sentenced to death, but the death penalty was overturned after California abolished capital punishment, and her sentence was commuted to life in prison. She first became eligible for parole in 1977 and a California parole board panel first recommended her release in 2016 after she made 22 appearances before the board, CNN reported.

That decision, however, was reversed five times by the state’s governors – twice by former Gov. Jerry Brown, who cited the horrific nature of the murders and Van Houten’s eager participation, and three times by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

In 1994, Van Houten described her part in the killings in a prison interview with CNN’s Larry King.

“I went in and Mrs. LaBianca was laying on the floor and I stabbed her,” said Van Houten, who was 19 at the time of the murders. “In the lower back, around 16 times.” 

From CNN 

I guess my first reaction to the release of Leslie Van Houten, is that only in hippie, left-wing California, can a two-time convicted murderer, walk away from prison. But that’s not completely accurate. You might have a shot at that, if you are a two-time murderer, if you committed your murders in Oregon or the State of Washington, perhaps Vermont. But in the real world, including a lot of deep blue states, like Maryland, which is my state, if you are a two-time murderer, hell, if you murdered one person, you are looking at life without, or the death penalty in prison.

Pamela Smart, who I talked about last month, is still serving life without even the possibility of parole, even though she didn’t actually physically commit her murder, but the two accomplishes that she hired did, but now they’re both free men. But Leslie Van Houten, whose physically and mentally responsible for murdering two people, Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, gets to walk away from prison, even after 53 years, which is more than almost 2 times the years that she lived as a free person, before her murders, but her victims are still dead.

I think sparing the life of Leslie Van Houten was a good thing. She obviously became a good, intelligent, responsible person, these last 53 years. But if you are old enough, strong enough, and mentally capable enough, to murder not one, but 2 people, in the prime of their lives, you  are old enough to spend the rest of your life paying for your murders.

My response to what Leslie Van Houten’s lawyer, Nancy Tetreault, who was on CNN last night talking to John Berman, she tried to argue that since Leslie was 19 at the time of her two murders in 1969, that she shouldn’t be held completely responsible for her crimes, because the brain of the 19 year old, isn’t as developed as someone whose in their 20s. Only in Hollywood, California could that argument hold. Well, the rest of Hippieland, California, as well.

But again, if you are old enough, strong enough, mentally competent enough, to murder not one, but two people in the prime of their lives, you are old enough to pay the price for your crimes, for the rest of your life, regardless of how old you were when you committed your murders.

MIT Video Productions: 'Howard Zinn at MIT 2005 - The Myth of American Exceptionalism'

Source:MIT Video Productions- author/historian Howard Zinn at MIT.

"Howard Zinn (1922-2010) offers a talk at MIT titled “The Myth of American Exceptionalism,” on March 14, 2005. He is the inaugural lecturer in the series “Myths About America” organized by MIT’s Special Program for Urban and Regional Studies (SPURS), which is hosted at MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning. He is introduced by Bish Sanyal, director of the SPURS/Hubert Humphrey Program. 

Howard Zinn is renowned as the author of “A People’s History of the United States” (1980). Historian, playwright and self-described democratic socialist, Zinn was chair of the history and social sciences department at Superman College, and political science professor at Boston University."

From MIT Video Productions

"Exceptionalism is the perception or belief that a species, country, society, institution, movement, individual, or time period is "exceptional" (i.e., unusual or extraordinary). The term carries the implication, whether or not specified, that the referent is superior in some way.

Although the idea appears to have developed with respect to an era, today it is particularly applied with respect to particular nations or regions.

Other uses of the term include medical and genetic exceptionalism." 

From Wikipedia

Howard Zinn said himself early in this lecture that America is not exceptional and implying that American exceptionalism is a myth. Well, if that's true, then America is not exceptionally good or bad, at least compared with any other country in the world. 

The definition of exceptionalism is, something that's exceptional, unusual, extraordinary. Those words are somewhat indifferent because they don't mean good or bad, they are just exceptional, unusual, or extraordinary. Someone or something, be exceptionally or unusually or extraordinary good or bad. You can have an exceptionally, or unusually, or  extraordinary bad car (or whatever the thing or person) or an exceptionally, or unusually, or extraordinary good car. 

The Far-Left, at least in America, (and Howard Zinn would be part of that faction) like to argue all the time that America is the real empire, Americans are the real terrorists, even during the Cold War, you had far-leftists in America arguing that America was the real evil empire, not Russia. But if you listen to Professor Zinn, America is not exceptionally good or bad, we're just like every other country. 

I'm not some hardcore American patriot, or some Nationalist, who really just loves his corner of the store, neck of the woods, his own people or tribe, etc, who claims to be an American patriot. But I do love America and think that America is not just a great country, but yes, the greatest country in the world. But for very good reasons. 

There's no country, that has produced more wealth and freedom, more individual rights and individualism, for more people, for more ethnic groups, for more races, for more men and women, for more religions, than America. 

Why do you think we have 10-15 illegal immigrants in America? The answer is very simple, because we have so many different people from different parts of the world, trying to come to America and in many cases don't want to or can't afford to await their turn to come to America and therefor immigrate to America illegally.And not just from the third world, but from Canada, Britain, Europe, Japan,, Korea, Middle East, etc.

You don't even see American far-leftists, trying to escape what they say us the evil empire and the real terrorist state in the world, (America, of course) and trying to get to Canada, Britain, Holland, or Scandinavia, even though all those countries speak English, at least as a 2nd language. And for very good reasons, because at least privately, they love America and don't even believe their own (to be frank) bullshit, but also because American far-leftists might be too crazy even for these social democracies. And that might even include the great Professor Howard Zinn. But what people say and believe publicly, doesn't always match up with what they say and believe privately.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Youn Gala: 'NBA Legends & Players Explain Why Larry Bird Would Destroy Today's NBA'

Source:Youn Gala- left to right: the 2nd greatest forward in NBA history and the greatest guard in NBA history, talking about the greatest forward in NBA history, Larry Bird. No one wanted to beat Larry Bird, more than Julius Erving & Earvin Johnson.

"NBA Legends And Players Explain Why Larry Bird Would Destroy Today's NBA" 

From Youn Gala

As I talked about yesterday on The New Democrat: Larry Bird dominated the NBA mentally. And add his hand-eye coordination as well, I think only Magic Johnson comes close as far as eye-hand coordination in the NBA. 

And yes, Larry Legend had great size, 6'9, some people say 6'10, 230 pounds of muscle. The Boston Celtics always undersized him and said that Bird was 215-220 pounds. Maybe in his first few years, but not by the mid and late 1980s. But it's Bird's basketball intelligence, his homework and I'm sure being 6'9 helped him see very well, because he was generally so much bigger and stronger, as well as taller, than most of the small forwards back then that tried to cover him. James Worthy and Dominique Wilkins being the exceptions to that. 

Why would Larry Bird destroy the NBA today? 

There are several reasons and one of the main ones is that NBA is so much different now. A lot more teams, a lot more games on cable, including the NBA Finals, instead of on broadcast network TV, a lot more players, and just to be real frank about this, the players and teams just aren't as good as even in the 1990s, when the quality of play, teams, and players started to decline, from the 1980s, when the NBA was at it's peak as far as the quality of players and teams. But again, the style of play and the culture of the NBA is so much different now. 

When Larry Bird played, it was a big man's league and he was this 6'9 big man, who played like a great NBA guard, not just small forward. Because the NBA is so perimeter oriented today, where the power forward and center positions, have all been eliminated, where every NBA player now who is 6'8 or taller, wants to be the next great point forward, instead of power forward or center. Even if they are 6'11 or 7'0 and have good strength as well, they still want to be the next great point forward, not big man. Larry Legend could or would be a center today, because of his size and the style of play today. Or, you would need your center to try to cover him, because your small forward is just too damn short and small to try to match up with him. 

Plus, the fact that NBA defense is not emphasized nearly as much today, as even 30 years ago, where players are like: "I'll try to stay with him and perhaps even put my hands up, but I don't want to get into foul trouble and I want to conserve my energy for offense, especially 3-pointers." 

But nothing to fear, because Larry Bird is 66 today and he probably wouldn't want to play in today's NBA anyway, because it would be way too easy for him. And he would feel guilty about destroying young NBA players who simply aren't good enough to play with or against him.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Goldfinger (1964) Gin & Jill

Source:Movie Clips- Sean Connery & Shirley Eaton. Perhaps you are smart enough to tell for yourself who is who.

"Bond (Sean Connery) notices Goldfinger (Gert Frbe) cheating at cards, and decides to play with him a bit, along with his sexy accomplice Jill Masterson (Shirley Eaton)" 

From Movie Clips

The only thing that I don't like about Shirley Eaton, is that she didn't have a bigger and longer career. If Shirley and Honor Blackman, were the two main female characters, the two female leads in this film, no one would complain, certainly no one in Britain. She was the perfect James Bond girl, because she was beautiful, adorable, sexy, and yet sharp and witty, just like with Honor Blackman. 

I think this is the typical James Bond scene. Bond (played by Sean Connery) and Goldfinger (played by Gert Frobe) trying to get the upper hand on each other and yet seeming to enjoy what they're doing and know that they're not just trying to destroy the other, but could be destroyed by the other as well. It's sort of the typical James Bond action/comedy scene and on reason why Goldfinger is the perfect Bond film, because of how entertaining and well-done it was.

You can also see this post on WordPress.