Norman Thomas vs Barry Goldwater: Socialism vs Conservatism (1961)

Source:Daily Kos- Socialist Party Leader Norman Thomas: the George McGovern/Bernie Sanders of his generation.

“With socialism enjoying a boom right now, I thought it’d be appropriate to write a biography of the most prominent socialist during the mid 20th century. During his long career, Thomas moved the Socialist Party’s image from being a bunch of soapbox orators to an almost respected pressure movement on the left. Even into his old age, he was a tireless activist for social justice and a prolific writer throughout. The Thomas era of socialism was a testament to how social democracy evolved after the war and can teach today’s left a thing or two.

Thomas was born in 1884 in Marion, Ohio. He was the oldest of six children and his father was a Presbyterian minister. During High School, he was a paper carrier for the Marion Daily Star, a newspaper owned by none other than Warren Harding. After graduating, he attended Bucknell University, and left after 1 year after the fortune of an uncle of his allowed him to attend Princeton. After graduating in 1905, he decided to become a minister like his father. He attended the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was ordained in 1911. UTS was a bastion for the social gospel and Thomas would preach this at his congregation where he spoke out against US entry into World War I. This pacificism alienated the leaders of the Presbyterian Church of New York, and he was forced to resign.

220px-Morris_Hillquit_NYWTS.jpg

SPA Leader Morris Hillquit- Thomas’ political mentor

But as the saying goes, when one door closes, another one opens. Thomas became employed with the New York mayoral campaign of Socialist Party leader Morris Hillquit in 1917. This would be his gateway into leftist politics. After the First World War ended, he quickly moved his way up the hierarchy of the socialist movement, at a time when it was being hit hard by the Palmer Raids. He became an editor at The Nation magazine in 1920, co-director of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID) in 1922, and would go on to help found the National Civil Liberties Bureau, which became the ACLU.

He also mounted several electoral campaigns. He ran for Governor of New York in 1924, Mayor of New York City in 1925 and 1929, State Senate in 1926, and Alderman in 1927. None of these were successful.”

From the Daily Kos 

“Socialist Norman Thomas debates Barry Goldwater at the University of Arizona in November 1961.”

Source:Jospeh Hewes- Barry Goldwater vs Norman Thomas in 1961.

From Jospeh Hewes

Senator Barry Goldwater and Socialist Party Leader Norman Thomas represented the intelligent way for Conservatives (like Goldwater Republicans) to debate Socialists (like Bernie Sanders) today. They layout their visions and why they believe what they believe and why they disagree with the other side. While not questioning the other’s patriotism and morality.

Source:The Daily Journal- Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) was the face of classical conservatism in Congress for 30 years.

It sounds like Norman Thomas who I’m familiar with the name and know he was a Socialist, but not very familiar with, but what I gather from this debate with Senator Barry Goldwater, was that Norman Thomas was arguing for democratic socialism, not communism, or Marxism. But basically what’s common in Sweden. Private enterprise, mixed in with a very generous welfare state funded by high taxes, to help deal with income inequality and providing services they don’t trust the private sector to provide.

Norman Thomas was debating a real Conservative in Barry Goldwater, who argued for individual freedom, pure and simple. That it’s not the business of government to try to control how people live. As long as they are not hurting anyone with what they are doing.

And Socialists today (even though they prefer to be called Progressives) share a lot of the democratic socialist principles that Norman Thomas and other Socialists have been arguing for, for at least a hundred years now.

I think you would have a very hard time telling the differences between Norman Thomas back in the early 1960s when this debate was done and Senator Bernie Sanders today. That capitalism and private enterprise aren’t bad things and that they are even necessary.

Norman Thomas and Bernie Sanders would argue that the problems with capitalism and private enterprise is when it comes to the distribution on wealth in America. That the resources in the country, meaning the money in the country, tends to be aimed at the top. With people at the top doing very well. And leaving a lot of people at the bottom with not much if anything. So what you need is a central or federal government to step in and provide the resources for people who need it who weren’t able to obtain it in the private economy.

Democratic Socialists believe you need, well a big government, according to the the (Democratic Socialist) big enough to see that everyone is taken care of. Let people make a lot of money, but then tax them fairly high so people at the bottom don’t have to go without and live in poverty. Which is where the welfare state, or even superstate comes in. That you need a big government to make sure that everyone is taken care and doesn’t have to go without. But also to provide services that shouldn’t be for-profit and be trusted with the private sector.

Socialists believe things like education, health care, health insurance, child care, retirement, perhaps energy and banking as well. Plus and social insurance system for people who become unemployed, disabled, or are part of the working poor, or low-skilled and not working at all. This seems to me at least, what Gordon Thomas’s politics was about.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

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

The Newsroom: Will McAvoy- 'RINOS Are The Real Republicans'

Source:K Sree Kumar- the cast from HBO's The Newsroom.

"This post may seem wildly dated, in that it takes up an American sitcom that first ran from 2012 to 2014 — but stick with me for a moment, and maybe it’ll seem topical again.

I first watched the The Newsroom in India, in re-runs a year or two after it first broadcast, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Notwithstanding criticisms from many reviewers, including some I usually agree with, about ineptitude, intellectual snobbery and worse, to me it seemed one of the smarter, more articulate of American comedy shows, with an interesting focus on what one might call “larger” issues.

Even before I watched the TV show I had, like pretty much everyone else who uses WhatsApp in India, seen an excerpt which went viral, at least in my country. It was labelled, “The Most Honest 2 Minutes on American TV”, or something on those lines. Just icymi, in that clip (viewable here), drawn from from Episode 1, Season 1, an American university student innocently asks a panel including key protagonist Will McAvoy the leading question, What makes America the greatest country in the world." 

From K Sree Kumar 

This is from HBO's The Newsroom episode when anchor Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) argues that the so-called RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) are the real Republicans. And the fake Republicans are actually populist Tea Party and the rest of the Populist-Right in America.

Source:HBO- Jeff Daniels, as Newsroom anchor Will McAvoy 

Another look at the episode from HBO’s The Newsroom where their anchor Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) argues that the so-called RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) are actually the real Republicans. And the populists are the fake Republicans.

Source:HBO- Jeff Daniels as The Newsroom anchor Will McAvoy.

I'll be honest, I'm not a regular viewer of HBO's Newsroom, but I've seen a few scenes of it. And what I've gotten out of it, is the anchor of this Newscast, is an admitted Republican. A Conservative Republican even, but a Republican in how the Republican Party use to be. 

Will McAvoy Republicans tend to be well-educated, intelligent, believe and reason and facts, are religious even, but believe in factually based evidence and facts and don't let their religious beliefs runs their lives for them, especially when their religion goes against facts and evidence.  

The people that I'm guessing Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) believes are the real RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) are people who are so hard-core with their religious and culturally based, nationalistic even political philosophy, that they are the people who are the real RINOS, because they don't believe in facts and evidence, just their political fundamentalism. And screw off facts and evidence, when they go against their partisan politics. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

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

Janet Jackson: State of The World (1990)

Source:Janet Jackson Chile- Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation tour (1990)

"Janet "State Of The World (Rhythm Nation Tour) "State Of The World" From "Rhythm Nation 1814"

©1989 A&M Records" 

From Janet Jackson Chile 

"Janet Jackson: State of The World" 

Source: Alex De Santos- Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation tour (1990)

Source:Alex Dos Santos

A great sexy performer, who can sing and dance and an absolute pleasure to watch perform. Whether you're a fan of Janet Jackson or not and I like some of her songs and not a fan of others, she always gives you more than your moneys worth in concert and when she performs. I could watch her dance and perform with the sound down or being there live but death and still enjoy her performance. She's a great dancer and always has great energy and I believe is perhaps at least the best performer when it comes to both dancing and singing at the same time. 

Janet Jackson has a great ability to sing while in rhythm and what I mean by that is she sings while she's in motion and I believe brings more to what she's saying with her movement. You can't hope but to check her out when she's singing because she moves so well and is so great to look at. A beautiful, baby-face, woman, with a great body and great style. And you can't help but check her out when she's performing. (Assuming you're attracted to women, anyway) And to sing hear her sing a song that I really like, like Black Cat or Love Will Never Do, just makes her that much better for me. 

Strange Days: Light My Fire Live (2011)

Source:Strange Days- as Jim Morrison and The Doors, performing Light My Fire in Sherman Oaks, California, in 2011.

"Los Angeles-based STRANGE DAYS performed "Light My Fire" THE DOORS classic on Saturday, June 25, 2011 at the Sherman Oaks Galleria. The performance was part of Galleria "LIVE!", the free concert series hosted by the Sherman Oaks Galleria." 

From Strange Days

The Lizard King cover looking like the Leather King in those skin-tight, black leather jeans. I'm impressed that anyone whether it was Jim Morrison himself or anyone else like someone playing him, can move and perform so well and gracefully in skin-tight leather jeans and cowboy boots, that must have squeezing his legs and feet. 

This cover is the best I've seen so far when it comes to The Doors. They have the look, sound and act, they've studied The Doors very well.

As far as the Jim Morrison cover: the hair is too long unless you look at Jim Morrison in 1969 when his music career was basically over. His alcoholism basically took over his life and he became very angry at almost everything he saw in life. And he grew a very long thick beard which you don't see on this Jim Morrison cover. 

And in early 69 Morrison was going downhill physically and emotionally and that lead to his horrible performance in Miami where he ends up in jail for his bad behavior. He was even accused of exposing himself at that Miami concert. 

Jim Morrison in his prime had a somewhat short, but thick dark haircut. The guy you see in this video has a hairstyle has a long haircut that was common with headbangers in the 1980s. But not with a blues rocker like Jim Morrison from the 1960s. 

Mike Din NYC: Jim Morrison & The Doors- Blue Sunday: Touch Me

Source:Mike Din NYC- Jim Morrison & The Doors's cover band Blue Sunday.

"Touch Me - The Doors, As performed by "Blue Sunday: The Doors Experience."

From Mike Din NYC

In real-life Jim Morrison was maybe 5'10-5'11 and perhaps more like 5'9 and maybe weighed 160 pounds or so. Sort of an average height slightly built man. Most of the Jim Morrison covers I've seen have been at least 6'0 and generally taller than that and have been tall muscular men. The lead vocalist from the Strange Days band would be an exception if not the only exception to that.

So most of the Jim Morrison covers haven't looked like Morrison other than the dark hair, the tight leather jeans, the cowboys boots, and concho built. They have his outfit down and some of them even have his moves and sound down very well as well. So if you're looking for a Morrison cover that looks a lot like Jim Morrison, this is not Saturday Night Live where they have people who who look a lot like the men they're playing like with Phil Hartmann playing Bill Clinton back in the day.

The Morrison covers tend to be much taller and larger men, but a lot of them do a really good job playing The Lizard King as far as the wardrobe, sound and presence. 

Mike Din NYC: The Doors: Blue Sunday- Performing LA Woman

Source:Mike Din NYC- the vocalist for Blue Sunday.

"As performed by "Blue Sunday: The Doors Experience"

Source:Mike DIN NYC 

A lot of the Jim Morrison covers have been big, tall, men, 6''0 or taller, 200 pounds or so, wearing The Lizard King's, skin-tight leather jeans, concho belt, and leather cowboy boots. Generally with a white or black button-down shirt. They get The Lizard King's wardrobe correct. I mean that's all he wore in public from 1967-69, for the most part, at least when he was out in public or giving performances. But in real-life, Jim Morrison was around 5'10 (give or take) and probably didn't way more than 160 pounds. 

Source:Mike Din NYC- the vocalist for Blue Sunday.

I guess this a Doors cover band that calls themselves Blue Sunday. Which of course is one of the most famous and popular songs that was created by Jim Morrison and The Doors. Which I believe came out in 1968, but you can fact-check me on that if you want.

That is common of Doors cover bands to do which is to use the name of one of The Doors songs as the name of their band. There's a band called Peace Frog. Another band called Strange Days. Have yet to see or hear of a band called Light My Fire or The End, or Roadhouse Blues, but they may exist as well.

I mean not every Doors cover band could call themselves The Doors, for obvious reasons. Or Jim Morrison and The Doors, again for obvious reasons. Because you would have a hard time extinguishing from one to another. Or even, "this is The Doors Cover Band" as someone is introducing them. The way to tell each of these bands apart is by their name of course, but also accuracy. Who looks, sounds, and plays the part the best, or even does a good job.

TNT: 'Dallas 2012 First Look'

Source:TNT- The great character actor Larry Hagman, back as J.R. Ewing on Dallas.

"We laid waste to everything in our path, J.R., and for what? Television's landmark drama returns to TNT next summer! Catch this exclusive first look at the all NEW series of DALLAS!

First look promo at the "Dallas" reboot on TNT airing Summer 2012."

From TNT'

I saw a few episodes of TNT's Dallas and it looks like a good show and has the potential to be a better show. But without JR Ewing played by Larry Hagman, having the starring role instead of more of a part time supportive role, its just not the same and of course Larry Hagman is in his early eighties now and probably doesn't want to act full-time anymore, but you don't replace a Larry Hagman.

On a show like this and only a few others of the former cast members are back, like Patrick Duffy whose very good and Linda Gray, who still looks great, but Larry Hagman was the franchise player of this show and he only has a part-time role and they don't have anyone who can fill his build.

So the show is somewhat lacking and the new cast is simply not as good, much younger than when the original cast was on the show, perhaps most if not all of them looking for that breakout role that leads to bigger roles. So the new Dallas still has some ways to go, to becoming a great show like the old one.

CBS: Dallas- 'The Complete Opening'

Source:CBS- Barbara Bel Geddes played the Queen of the Ewing Family.

"This is a collection of elements of all the opening titles for Dallas.I have included all the movies (except for The Early Years) and the Reunion credits and both Southforks are shown at the end. I am pretty sure I got everyone." 

From Fonjil

Perhaps the best non-sports intro theme song in television history. And there have been plenty of great ones like Dukes of Hazzard, Knight Rider, A-Team, General Hospital, Mannix, Hunter, The Fall Guy, and many others. But this is my favorite one, because of the great song and so much of the show you get to see from it, including the great cast. And of course so much of the great city of Dallas, where the show gets it's name, also known as Big D. (This coming from a Redskins fan) The best theme song to the best soap opera ever (at least in prime time) if not the best show of the 1980s.

Dallas was the classic dramatic comedy with a lot of very interesting, funny, complicated people. A show with no saints but with very human people where no one is really the bad guy or bad girl. No one is really the good guy or good girl. With some exceptions, but the classic soap opera where you have a lot of very talented and determined characters who all know what they want, how of much of it that they want, who the competition is, and have a plan to hurt if not destroy the competition (if they have to) in order to get where and what they want when they want it.

Dallas was the classic funny soap opera where no one is ever completely safe and no one ever can be completely trusted, where you have great clever putdowns and even constructive putdowns and yet you have people who as much as they might try to destroy each other, who don't want to completely lose the people that they've hurt and have even tried to destroy. Very similar to great soaps like Melrose Place, General Hospital, a few others.

AlterNet: Valerie Tarico- 'Why Do the Craziest Religious People Get the Most Attention?'

Source:FreeState MD- a woman who is perhaps out of this world.

Source:FreeState MD 

“There’s no question that religion can have some ugly moral and social consequences. The homophobic and misogynist attitudes of many American Evangelicals come straight out their sacred texts. So do the Islamic concepts of “dhimmitude” and jihad. So does the Jewish notion of favored bloodlines. So do Mormon and Scientologist recruiting practices. The Bible prescribes the death penalty for thirty six infractions, ranging from childhood disobedience to marital infidelity to witchcraft. The Quran contains over a hundred verses sanctifying the slaughter of infidels in one context or another. I’ve argued in the past that religion disinhibits violence rather than causing it, but in a world of complex causation, one where straws sometimes break the backs of camels, that may be a distinction without a difference. The fact is, putting God’s name on Iron Age morality contributes to Iron Age behavior.

There also can be no question that, in this regard, not all ideologies are created equal. Religions differ in their history, teaching, and priorities, and consequently in how readily they are leveraged to justify oppression or violence. To name this month’s most salient example, Islam’s death penalty for blasphemy, combined with a prohibition of images, means that some Muslims are uniquely likely to flare when testosterone gets ignited by blasphemous pictures. The Onion made this point recently with a graphic cartoon depicting Jesus, Moses, Ganesh, and Buddha engaged in sex, beneath the caption, “No One Murdered Because of This Image.”  

From the AlterNet 

“In his editorial New Rule, Bill Maher addresses Indiana’s new “religious freedom” law and calls on moderates of all religions to come out against fundamentalism.” 

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- on religious fundamentalism.

From Real Time With Bill Maher 

Probably the same reason why the craziest Atheists who want to outlaw religion, because they are crazy and don’t understand the U.S. Constitution. If you don’t want to hear about someone, stop talking about them and you’ll hear less.

I like this article in the AlterNet, (perhaps the only article I’ve ever liked by the AlterNet) because Valerie Tarico takes on fundamentalists from all religions. Not just Evangelical Christians, which is what today’s so-called Progressives (the Far-Left really) only focus on:

“Christian-Conservatives, are evil bigots, because they put down women and gays. Conservative-Muslims, are good decent people, who are simply misunderstood. And when they do and say bad things, it’s America’s fault.” Which is generally the attitude that you get from the Far-Left. Which is what the AlterNet is, a clearly left-wing, if not socialist publication on the Far-Left. But with what you get with Valerie Tarico, is religious fundamentalism is bad, even it comes from non-Anglo-Saxon Protestant males.

If religious fundamentalism and bigotry that comes from religious fundamentalism, is a bad thing like gays aren’t real humans, or are mentally handicapped, or women’s place is in the home, etc, then religious fundamentalism is bad period. Doesn’t matter the religion, the race, ethnicity, or color of the people.

If you’re going to put down the Christian-Right when one of their members murders a man simply because he thought that guy was gay, because he had a feminine voice and demeanor, then you can’t defend that same behavior when it happens in Saudi Arabia. Where gays are put to death by their own Islamic government.

The debate about religious extremism shouldn’t be about race, ethnicity, color, or a specific religion. Unless you’re simply bigoted about one race, ethnic, or religious group. To coin a phrase from the great movie about Watergate All The President’s Men: “Follow the money.” Or in this case follow the bigotry. When the Christian-Right behaves badly, sure, go after them. But when Islamists behave badly, don’t call people who criticize that behavior bigots simply for criticizing bad behavior.

Stupid people, unfortunately come in all shapes, sizes, colors, races, ethnicities, religions and genders. Which makes them harder to deal with, because they can hit you at anytime from anyone. No race, ethnicity, religion or gender, has a monopoly on stupidity and bigotry. Which is too bad, because it would be easier to deal with and eliminate:

“Hey, now that we know what all stupid look like, lets just focus on them and put the bigoted morons away.”

You can’t do that with a mental disease like stupidity, simply because we don’t have enough prison and hospital space to house all of those morons. And given these facts when you just concentrate on the bigots from one religion and race of people, while you ignore the bigots from another religion which just happens to be the largest religion in the world, being Islam, you give away get out of jail free cards to a lot of people. Who are just as bigoted as the Christian-Conservatives you don’t like. Which is stupid in itself. 

HLN: Showbiz Tonight- Countdown: 'Best Burnett Ever!'

Source:HLN- The Carol Burnett Show, on HLN's Showbiz Tonight.

"The cast of the "Carol Burnett Show" including Burnett herself countdown the show's best moments on Showbiz Tonight."

Source: HLN Showbiz Tonight 

One of the best variety comedy shows of all-time, sort of like a half-hour Saturday Night Live. Speaking of SNL: SNL gets a lot of credit for being such an original variety skit-comedy show that other shows have tried to follow and make their own versions of it. And all of that is true, but Carol Burnett, was essentially the same thing, but came out 6-7 years earlier in the late 1960s, instead of 1975 with SNL and was on CBS instead of NBC.

You could make a case that Carol Burnett herself and her show with his her great cast and writers, inspired shows like Saturday Night Live and later In Living Color, MADD-TV and other skit comedy shows. Because of how good it was, how original it was, the topics it covered. That it wasn’t about sending a political, or cultural message, but about making fun of everyday American life.

The Carol Burnett Show, covered and had everything and they weren’t about politics at least in the sense they were trying to push some political message. It was simply about entertainment and what was going on in America at the time especially as it related to pop culture. And always looking for the funny side of everything they covered.

The CBS mad fun of politicians, movies, TV shows, actors, musicians, weren’t worried about political correctness and pleasing everybody. But great comedians who all had similar sense of humors, great chemistry, who liked each other loved working with each other. And in that sense at least it reminds me of Seinfeld and was better than Saturday Night Live, that generally looks at politics from a political slant. Carol Burnett, was simply about making people laugh and doing it in a classy way and having a great time at it. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

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

Suzanne Somers: 'On Leaving The Role of Chrissy On Three's Company'

Source:Foundation Interviews- actress/comedian Susanne Somers on why she was kicked off of ABC's Three's Company.

"Suzanne Somers on leaving the role of "Chrissy" on Three's Company - EMMYTVLEGENDS.ORG" 

From Foundation Interviews

Suzanne Somers blew a big opportunity by leaving or putting herself in position to get fired by ABC. Because her acting career would've probably taken off from there, being on such a hot show, that probably would've led to other opportunities, that would've made the money and then some from what she was looking for from at ABC.

Lynn Stuart Parramore: 'Are You Ready For a Post Masculine World?'

Source:AlterNet- columnist Lynn Stuart Parramore.

"The sun began to set on traditional masculinity over 500 years ago – just around the time musketeers arrived on the battlefields of Europe. At first, the feudal knights scoffed. How unnatural, and worse, how unmanly to go around pointing ungainly, smoke-belching sticks at your enemies!

But soon enough, technology won out, and it was the knights who faded into obsolescence. Poets pined for the old masculinity, but the days when the brawniest ruled the land were numbered. Brains now counted. So did the ability to adapt to new technologies. Just ask Elizabeth I."

From the AlterNet 

“There are a few things that happen when you attempt to travel the streets of New York with a bright yellow book that screams The End of Men under your arm. First, you get a lot of inquisitive stares. Some people snicker. When you accidentally leave the book on the counter of your morning coffee shop, the man who returns it to you points to the cover, giggles, and does a little jig.

But if you are the author of a book called The End of Men—with a man for a husband and a boy for a child—you get sticky notes left on your bedroom door. “My 6-year-old, to whom the book is dedicated, writes things like, ‘Only bullies write books called The End of Men,’” says author Hanna Rosin, whose 2010 Atlantic essay turned 310-page book hit stands this week. She clarifies: “He’s learning about bullying in school.”

Source:The Daily Beast- "It's not the end of men - but they're in trouble." From Hanna Rosin.

From The Daily Beast

“Are we seeing an end of men and a rise of women? In our guest spot today Hanna Rosin author of The End of Men: And the Rise of Women, points out that women are no longer gaining on men they have pulled ahead of them. In her book she investigates the shifting power dynamics between men and women throughout every level of society and the implications it has on life events.

Check out an excerpt from The End of Men: And the Rise of Women and be sure to tune in at 3:40pm for the full conversation.

“Award-winning journalist Hanna Rosin argues that the transitional economy is ushering in a new era in gender relations, and explores how both men and women can adapt to our rapidly changing social and cultural dynamics.”

Source:NBC News- Hanna Rosin's book.

From NBC News

"Award-winning journalist Hanna Rosin argues that the transitional economy is ushering in a new era in gender relations, and explores how both men and women can adapt to our rapidly changing social and cultural dynamics." 

Source:The RSA- Author Hana Rosin, talking about her book. 

From The RSA

Warning: this article could be construed as politically incorrect by oversensitive tight asses. Actually, it probably will be.

Men, who needs them? A Far-Left pipe dream where men are not even welcome, or where masculinity disappears, or where all men are essentially gay. I find it ironic that people on the Far-Left who are so anti-male man-haters, tend to be somewhat dykish even and have masculine characteristics themselves. Even though they claim to be anti-masculinity. They see football, boxing, interest in cars, tools, gambling, checking out attractive women, and I could go on, but I have other things I would like to accomplish in my life, but they see all of these activities as somehow sexist. Even though a lot of American women, straight even, like football, boxing, cars, tools, gambling, etc and are some of the most feminine, beautiful and sexy women you’ll ever see.

It is not so much masculinity that the man-hating sexist Far-Left doesn’t like. Well, they don’t like masculinity, but it’s male masculinity and male heterosexuality that they don’t like. But if women are a Dyke, no problem, because she’s just being who she was born as. According to Socialists on the Far-Left who don’t like masculinity when it comes from straight men. 

You’ll never see straight men, or women who are to the right of Socialists, (democratic or otherwise) which is only most of the world, try to put down female femininity. Because we love women, especially straight women. At least coming from a straight man. We love who they are and how versatile that they are. That they’re cute, beautiful, well-built, funny, but they’ll also stand up for themselves and watch sports with the guys.

There are straight women who like sports and there are straight men such as myself, who like soap operas. If they’re funny, well-written, well-done and seem to have some broader point other than: "Who is Jake going to stab in the back now." Or whoever the character is. Without straight men and yes we tend to be masculine which is a common characteristic about straight men and something that straight women tend to like about us, we would have a country of gay men and overly adorable and feminine straight women who never grow up. We would be a national day care center and kindergarten class. With no one to fix the cars when they break down, police the streets, defend the country and so-forth. Because all the men would be makeup artists, or clothing designers. Well, I guess the dykes could handle the male responsibilities. It would be a strange universe where everyone who enters who use to live on Planet Earth would think they drank too much, or got too high the night before.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on WordPress.

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

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

MLB Productions: MLB 1961- World Series Game 5- New York Yankees @ Cincinnati Reds: Highlights

Source:MLB Productions- welcome to Cincinnati's Crosley Field.

"1961 World Series Game 5: Yankees @ Reds" 

From Baseball Ruski

You can see why the New York Yankees were called the Bronx Bombers during this era. I mean they have Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, when Maris was still a deadly power hitter, and Elston Howard (to name a few) all in the same lineup. A very difficult team to pitch to, especially in a small ballpark like Crosley Field in Cincinnati. The Cincinnati Reds really needed a great game from their starting pitcher to have any shot at beating the Yankees, even at their home ballpark, which they simply didn't get. And the Reds threw batting practice instead losing this game 13-5.

Brave New Foundation: 'Law & Disorder- How the System Really Works'

Source: Brave New Foundation- actor Dennis Farina, when he was on seasons 15-16 of Law & Order. RIP

"On Law & Order, everything makes sense: the police chase after violent bad guys, the accused get a fair trial, and justice is blind. But is that the reality in the United States? Watch this video to have your mind blown about how unjust our system truly is.

Produced with the partnership of the American Civil Liberties Union, Constitution Project, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers."

From Brave New Foundation

A lot of these law enforcement shows about the justice system, all though most of them are entertaining, only focus on a small percentage of the crimes. But again we are talking about entertainment here. Who would want to watch a show that’s about shoplifting, or traffic stops, drunk driving an so-forth. People need to be able to differentiate between reality and entertainment and many times they are not the same thing. But even if the law enforcement shows showed the criminal justice system for what it is that it a lot about drug crimes and drug offenders and that a lot of these supposed crimes happen in African-American communities in urban areas, these shows would be accused of racism. For always highlighting young African-American men as suspects and criminals.

If these law enforcement shows showed the criminal justice system for what it really is, that it is basically about low-level felonies like shoplifting and misdemeanors, who would watch? Again I get back to the entertainment factor here. A lot of these shows as far as the crimes and how the detectives and prosecutors do their jobs even though they aren’t completely accurate, are at least realistic. As professionals in the criminal justice system will tell you. And even though they do tend to concentrate on a low percentage of crimes that are committed in America, they tend to do a good and accurate job. And they are realistic in the sense that crimes in America are committed by all Americans as far as ethnicity and race. And they don’t focus on one racial, or ethnic group in America.

Again to go back to Hollywood and reality it’s not the job of Hollywood to show exactly what life if like and the subjects that they cover. There job is to be entertaining and hopefully realistic. Smart viewers want both, but unfortunately for lot of Americans they simply want to be entertained when they are watching TV. And even if these shows don’t show the criminal justice system for exactly what it is, again its Hollywood and if you’re a smart person you’re going to anyway how realistic the show is anyway by how informed you are about how the country works. And how much you know about current affairs in America including criminal justice, or whatever the issue is.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

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

CBS News: Mike Wallace: ‘The Homosexuals (1967)’

Source:CBS News- A 1967 CBS News documentary-

”It’s been nearly 50 years since CBS News first took on the subject of gay rights. It was in a documentary. You’ll recognize the host, Mike Wallace, but you won’t recognize your country.

“Most Americans are repelled by the mere notion of homosexuality,” reported Wallace in the documentary. “A CBS poll shows two out of three Americans look on homosexuality with disgust, discomfort, or fear.”

The year was 1967 and whoever named the program cut straight to the chase: “CBS Reports: The Homesexuals.”

From CBS News 

“The Homosexuals” is a 1967 episode of the documentary television series CBS Reports. The hour-long broadcast featured a discussion of a number of topics related to homosexuality and homosexuals. Mike Wallace anchored the episode, which aired on March 7, 1967. Although this was the first network documentary dealing with the topic of homosexuality, it was not the first televised in the United States. That was The Rejected, produced and aired in 1961 on KQED, a public television station out of San Francisco.Three years in the making, “The Homosexuals” went through two producers and multiple revisions. The episode included interviews with several gay men, psychiatrists, legal experts and cultural critics, interspersed with footage of a gay bar and a police sex sting. “The Homosexuals” garnered mixed critical response.”

Source:Kim Smythe- 1967 CBS News documentary about homosexuality.

From Kim Smythe 

“Veteran journalist Mike Wallace, who died Saturday at age 93, had many claims to fame and one credit that might be considered a claim to infamy — his participation in the sensationalistic 1960s documentary The Homosexuals.

Wallace would later express regret about the tone of the documentary, which aired only once, March 7, 1967, on CBS. Hosted and narrated by Wallace, it characterized gay men as promiscuous and lonely, given to fleeting, anonymous sexual encounters. It acknowledged the discrimination they faced, but with “no sense of righteous indignation” about that, the journal Film Threat once noted. The program largely ignored lesbians. Still, it marked a breakthrough in gay visibility on television.

“Years after the broadcast, Mike Wallace would admit regret that The Homosexuals was not more balanced and sympathetic in its focus,” according to the Film Threat article. “In 1995, Wallace made a surprise appearance at New York’s Lighthouse Cinema, which was showing The Homosexuals as part of a Gay Pride line-up. The audience treated Wallace with deep respect and the veteran newsman hosted an impromptu Q&A session after the film was screened.”

Source:The Advocate- from Mike Wallace's 1967 documentary about homosexuality.

From The Advocate

If you look at this documentary especially by the standards and culture of today, Mike Wallace’s 1967 documentary about homosexuality looks very homophobic. It wouldn’t be made today at least the way it was written and the people that were interviewed, especially Christian-Right folks who think that homosexuality should be a crime and we should go back to Beaver Cleaver’s and Ozzie and Harriet’s 1950s America. And the Far-Left political correctness movement would beat the hell out it talking about how bigoted the documentary is.

But to state the obvious: 1967 is not 2012. The view that homosexuality was a crime and a sin was actually mainstream even in the late 1960s. And if you had no issues with gays and homosexuality back then and believed gays should be treated equally as straights, you would be considered a radical back then.

In my personal opinion and I believe I’m part of a solid majority today in 2012, gays are entitled to the same legal and constitutional rights and responsibilities as straights, just as I believe that ethnic and racial minorities have the same rights and responsibilities as European-Americans and even Anglo-Saxons. But if I was around in 1967 with those same views, I would be the radical. And people who are considered Far-Rightists today, would be part of the mainstream when it comes to American public opinion and culture.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

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

CBS News: See It Now- Edward R. Murrow vs Senator Joseph R. McCarthy

Source: CBS News- See it Now, with Edward R. Murrow. 

"Edward R. Murrow vs. Senator Joe McCarthy. Originally from CBS News's See it Now, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube. 

"On a wall of Joseph McCarthy's Senate office there used to hang a framed quotation. its author unknown!

“Oh, God, don't let me weaken. Help me to continue on. And when I go down, let me go down like an oak tree felled by a woodsman's ax.

In its March 8, 1954, cover story. Time magazine took note of that prophetic inscription as it profiled the junior Senator from Wisconsin, then at the very height of his political power. For four years he had terrorized the nation with his wild and exaggerated charges that nearly every branch of the Government had been infiltrated by Communists and fellow travelers who were busily doing the Soviet Union's dirty work. In the cold‐war climate of fear that the Senator was exploiting and exacerbating, the careers of many eminent men and women were being destroyed on the basis of hearsay evidence — or no evidence at all — and McCarthy's rampage seemed unstoppable." 

From The New York Times

I saw the movie Goodnight and Good Luck from 2005 made by George Clooney who actually played Fred Friendly in this movie. I've seen this movie a few times including in the theater when it came out in 2005 and it was about CBS News anchor Edward Murrow, the host of the newscast See It Now. And how they took on Senator Joseph McCarthy who was chairing a committee when Senate Republicans were in the majority from 1953-55, when this committee was investigating Communists in the Federal Government.

Ed Murrow and his staff concluded that Chairman McCarthy was accusing and convicting people they were investigating, based on guilt by association, people who were accused of associating with Communists or Socialists, were automatically labeled as Communists themselves, even if they were just suspected by the McCarthy Committee.

And the Ed Murrow show decided that what Senator McCarthy was doing was wrong and that this had to be reported and be stopped if they can, which is exactly what happened in late 1954. Just after Senate Democrats had won back the majority. And this was controversial of Ed Murrow and See It Now, because back then it was considered wrong for newscasters to take stands on issues, that their job was simply as reporters not commentators.

What Ed Murrow and his staff did was conclude based on what they reported and saw from the McCarthy Committee that it wasn't a matter of opinion in what Senator McCarthy was doing was wrong, but that Senator McCarthy was in fact wrong and what he was doing was so wrong, that he had to be stopped. That it was simply Un-American to label people for who and who they might of associated with, either now or in the past, even if they are Communists.

That attacking people or trying to punish people for who they simply have associated with or may have associated with is wrong and that people should be judged by what they do and say, not what they may believe. Or who they may have associated with. And this wasn't easy for Ed Murrow, because he was not only taking on a powerful Senator and Member of Congress in Joe McCarthy but he was taking on his own bosses at CBS News who didn't believe newscasters should be editorializing.

Without Ed Murrow and See It Now maybe Joe McCarthy would've bombed out on his own and either the Senate. Or the country would've caught on, on their own. But the media especially the TV media wasn't as powerful back then as it is today and See It Now was the only show that was covering this story on a regular basis and had decided that what Senator McCarthy was doing, was not only wrong but needed to be stopped.

Jack Paar Show: Robert F. Kennedy: March 13th, 1964

Source:David Von Pein- Jack Paar & U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. 

"Friday, March 13, 1964 -- Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy makes his first public appearance since the assassination of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, which occurred exactly sixteen weeks earlier (on November 22, 1963).

RFK elected to make his first post-assassination public appearance on "The Jack Paar Program". The studio audience, as expected, gave Bobby a lengthy standing ovation.

This video includes the first part of Jack Paar's 3/13/64 interview with Bobby Kennedy."

From David Von Pein

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, a few months after his brother President John Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, goes on NBC's the Jack Parr Show. I guess he wanted to get back to living a normal life, or as normal of a life that a public official can have in America and get out of the funk he was in from losing his brother and did it in a big way by going on Jack Parr and trying to communicate to the world that he and his family were doing okay, or as well as they could be doing after seeing one of their family members assassinated. 

Bobby Kennedy came back in a big way in 1964. RFK wanted to make his life worth serving again the only way he knew how outside of his family by serving the public and being involved in public affairs. He was already Attorney General of the United States, but had other interests as well.

As Attorney General, RFK was influential in getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress. His speech at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, resigning from office right after that and running for U.S. Senate in New York. Where he wins there, partially thanks to President Johnson's landslide victory over Barry Goldwater with New York being one of those States. 

Bobby Kennedy not only came back in 1964, but came back in a big public way that few other people would've been able to come back from after a tragedy. Like losing a sibling in the manner that he did. 

The Jack Paar Show, was perfect for RFK because Jack was a very funny man, but also up to date on current affairs and interested in them. And was Bobby Kennedy being a Kennedy with their famous wit and intelligence.

1964, was a very depressing and yet liberating year for Bob Kennedy. First, he was Attorney General, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States, but for a man he hated President Lyndon Johnson, who was President Kennedy's Vice President. LBJ, not exactly best friends with RFK, but at least he let the Attorney General do his job. Unlike RFK who was always undermining any authority and responsibility that LBJ had as Vice President. But that is really a different discussion and perhaps debate, especially for RFK loyalists. 

RFK, didn't want to work for President Johnson and that is one reason why he decided to run for the Senate in 1964. And restore some freedom over his own personal life and career. And going on Jack Paar in early 1964, was the start of RFK returning to public life again.   

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on WordPress. 

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

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