World Opinion Forum:CBS News- President Richard Nixon's Resignation Speech: Dan Rather vs Roger Mudd

Source:World Opinion Forum- CBS News Washington Correspondent Roger Mudd.

Source:The New Democrat

"The night Nixon resigned word came down  from the top at CBS to - as Dan Schorr put it - "Go soft on NIxon." Schorr added: "I guess Roger didn't get the word."See also responses of Walter Cronkite and Eric Severeid. Video from Nixon Library."

From World Opinion Forum

CBS News covering President Richard Nixon's resignation speech in August, 1974. (I wasn't born yet!) Of course because of President Nixon's involvement in the Watergate break in in 1972 where employees of the Richard Nixon Reelection Campaign, broke into Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington in the summer of 1972.

After it became clear because of President Nixon's presidential tapes that the President ordered the coverup. he lost most of whatever support he had left in Congress. At least enough in the House and even in his own party to prevent him from being impeached by the House with a bipartisan majority and win a conviction trial in the Senate. The President would have been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

That is how Congress can remove the President and Vice President from office. Congressional Republicans led by Senator Barry Goldwater, but Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott and House Minority Leader John Rhodes, told President Nixon that the gig was up, so to speak. Went to the White House and told the President he can't survive Watergate and if he tries to he'll be removed from off by Congress.

That is why President Richard Nixon resigned from office. Because had he not he would have faced a worst embarrassment of being removed from office by Congress and perhaps losing half of his own party in the House and Senate on those votes.

Senate Republicans told President Nixon that he might have twenty votes for acquittal in the Senate if it went that far. You need 34 to defeat impeachment in the Senate and Republicans had 45 seats in the Senate in that Congress. More than enough to defeat an impeachment trial if they're united on it.

President Nixon had calculated that he would probably get impeached by the Democratic House that had roughly 260 seats, but the win the conviction trial in the Senate. But Senator Goldwater told the President that he didn't have enough votes in the Senate for that and that he Barry Goldwater would vote for conviction.  Perhaps Richard Nixon did want to end this and save the country from seeing their President impeached and convicted. But it's clear that a big part of him resigning was to save himself from further embarrassment.

This Democratic Congress of 1973-74, was ready to get past impeachment and deal with other issues. Like making sure the Vietnam War ended swiftly and properly, the country was going through a recession and lacked affordable energy, inflation was becoming a big problem, rising unemployment, etc. But just as long as President Nixon was removed one way or another from office. Whether they had to do that themselves or the President voluntarily stepped down.

So as Roger Mudd and Dan Rather were talking about as far as whether the House would go through on impeachment anyway even with the President resigning, there was no appetite for that in either the Democratic Caucus or Republican Caucus. And the Democratic Senate wanted nothing to do with an impeachment trial and neither did Senate Republicans, especially if the President already decided to voluntarily resign. Richard Nixon being the master politician he was, knew when to fold and when he lost all support which is why he resigned from office.

The Objective Standard: Dr. Martin Luther King on Government & The Individual

Source:The Objective Standard- talking about Dr. Martin L. King.

Source:The New Democrat

"For commentary from an Objectivist perspective, visit:The Objective Standard." 

Politically Dr. Martin Luther King, politically was a Democratic Socialist and proud of it. At least when it came to economic policy and foreign policy. He was a democratic collectivist in the sense he believed that the job of government especially the central government, was to see that everyone was taken care of and no one had to go without. And believed in the democratic socialist model of the welfare state that is common in Scandinavia, where the job of the central government is to seen that a lot of the people's needs are met by the government: education, health insurance, health care, child care, very generous benefits for the working poor and non-working poor, etc. 

Dr. King also had what's called a classical liberal streak (that I call a real liberal streak) where all Americans are entitled to basic individual and equal rights. This quote in this photo is a perfect example of that. Where he's saying that:"Man is not made for the state, but the state is made for the man."

Euro News: Martin Luther King's- I Have a Dream Speech

Source: KERA News- Dr. Martin Luther King in 1963. 

Source:The New Democrat

"I have a dream that one day my children will be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin." Dr. Martin Luther King, the leader of the African-American civil and equal rights movement of the 1960s. Not the only leader, but the leader as far as his importance and what he accomplished for that community. And I'm just quoting what he said in his 1963 March on Washington in his I Have a Dream speech. Dr. King, at the very least wanted an America where his family and the African-American community, would no longer be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Even if he didn't mean that for America as a whole, lets apply it to the rest of the country anyway. Lets create an America where individuals are judged simply as that. As individuals and not members of this group or any other group. But simply as people and what they have to offer and where they come up short simply as individuals. That is what the vision  of a color and race-blind country would be.

Whether someone is racist towards one race of American or another, they're still racists. If you judge people simply by their race and decide they should be denied access in America simply because of their race, even if you're attentions are good, you're guilty of racism. No matter what race you're a member of and what race or races you intend to benefit and what race or races you seek to deny. That is the opposite of a color and race-blind country. That is not Dr. King's dream, but the exact opposite of it. How well and how better off would we be as a country if racism and other forms of bigotry, whether they'r targeted against people simply because of their ethnicity religion, gender, or sexuality. We're not talking about levels of poverty that we are today if racism is simply not part of the picture. Because no one would be denied schools and employment, simply because of their race or any other characteristic that's part of their DNA. And to say that this group of Americans has been denied access because of their race, now we have to benefit those people by denying other races, is also racism. But from a different direction.

Racism even if it's used to benefit other groups at the expense of different groups, is still racism. And goes against Dr. King's dream of a color and race-blind country. What we should do instead is make Dr. King's dream a reality. And outlaw the use of racism when it's used to deny any American access, simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexuality. Whether it comes from the private sector or government. And instead don't automatically notice one's complexion when you first seem them and think they must be this way, because this is how they look. But instead see a person and someone you can either get along with and work with or not, because of how you individually relate with each other as people, but because of how you were born and how you look. That I believe is the America that Dr. King wanted. An America that worked for everybody based on what you did for it and what you did for yourself to make yourself the most productive and successful person you can be. But not because of how you were born and your racial characteristics.
Source:Euro News

Democratic Socialists of America: Thomas F. Jackson- Martin Luther King for Our Times

Source:The New Democrat

What Thomas Jackson was writing in his DSA piece about Martin King was the next stage of Dr. King’s civil rights and really people’s right campaign. His Poor People’s Campaign and his campaign for economic justice. Dr. King, was the Henry Wallace or Norman Thomas of his time. The 1950s and 60s version of Bernie Sanders. A hard-core self-described Democratic Socialist. Who saw racial bigotry and poverty, especially poverty that overwhelmingly affects one race of Americans over everyone else, as a horrible tragedy. As a national man-made disaster that had to be dealt with right away. Not just for people who suffer in deep poverty, but for the country as a whole. The fewer people you have in poverty the stronger economy you’ll have. More people working and consuming quality products.

Dr. King’s, vision of economic justice not just for African-Americans, but Americans in general was a welfare state that was big enough so no one had to live in poverty. Where all American workers could organize and become members of labor unions. Where the Federal Government guaranteed a national basic income for all of it’s citizens. Where no American was so wealthy that any other American had to live in poverty. Where quality education and housing would be available to all Americans. His agenda, would be even radical even today. Senator Bernie Sanders, is a self-described Democratic Socialist today. But a lot of his followers who are even to the left of Bernie are still afraid of that label and as a result won’t own their own politics. So you could imagine how Dr. King’s economic vision was viewed as back then.

Similar to Senator Sanders, I share many of Dr. King’s goals, but I don’t share the same vision for how to achieve them. But what I like and respect about both them is that they both put their visions and plans out there. And then let people let them know how they feel about them. Dr. King, didn’t want to assist people in poverty. He wanted to end poverty and have an economy where everyone could get educated and get good jobs. Including taxing the wealthy heavily to fund programs to help people achieve their own economic success. Which would be form of wealth redistribution. He put his whole agenda post-civil rights movement and the Fair Housing Law of 1968 out there. About what the next stage of his human rights campaign would have gone into the 1970s.

There was nothing mushy-middle about Dr. King. The civil rights movement of the 1960s was not considered mainstream. It almost destroyed the Democratic Party in the South. But as Dr. King said, ‘it’s always time to do the right thing.’ If something is right you do it whether it’s popular or not. Civil and equal rights are now the backbone of American liberal democracy. But they weren’t even in the 1960s and after that campaign was won. Dr. King didn’t decide to move to the center. But instead moved even farther forward. With his own democratic socialist vision for America that unfortunately, because of his assassination he didn’t have much of an opportunity to see it through. And his
movement didn’t really have anyone as strong as him that could pick up his mantle and move the ball forward for his campaign.

Salon: Aaron R. Hanlon: 'They're The Politically Correct: Ben Carson and Bill O'Reilly Are The Real Intolerant Speech Police'

Source:The New Democrat

To point out about political correctness policies by Ben Carson who apparently wants to ban language on campus that he sees as Un-American, just points out the fact that political correctness fascism, (and that’s exactly what it is) is bipartisan. But no way does it defend the Far-Left from trying to ban criticism of Muslims and Islam in general. It just makes the sophomoric argument, “that we might do it. But so do they. We might be bad, but they suck worse.” Not exactly a crowd pleaser and inspirational argument that brings people to your side.

At best you might get people to decide on choosing the lesser of two evils. The problem with that is that you’re still choosing evil. Just a lesser evil, but still evil. “You want me to break your back, or do you want permanent brain damage?” Okay, you don’t like that. How about a choice between going blind, or going death? All right fine. How about I break your arm, or your leg, but I won’t break both?” Because those are the kinds of choices you have when picking between two evils. Fascism on the Right, or fascism on the Left. How about neither!

Political correctness fascism from either the Right or Left, still fascism. And try to say one is worst than the other, how about we not have that argument. Instead of arguing who was a worst dictator, Joe Stalin, or Adolph Hitler, how about we have an argument about who is the better president, Harry Truman, or Ronald Reagan. And just because one side does it when it comes to political correctness, doesn’t excuse the other side when they do it. It just means that we had anti-free speech radicals on both sides. Who’ll fight like hell for their right to free speech. As they try to crush the other side’s rights.

“Dad, I cheated on that test, but so did five other students.” That wouldn’t impress my father and imagine most fathers and probably most mothers as well. All that does it show you that cheating was a problem on that test. And when you point out examples of political correctness on the other side, it just points out that political correctness is a bipartisan problem. But it doesn’t excuse either side. Political correctness, is illiberal fascism, whether it comes from the Left or Right. Actually, all fascism is illiberal. Meaning not liberal. Which is why this blog constantly points out the importance of free speech. And all believers of free speech Right and Left, should always fight against fascism.

CBS News: 60 Minutes Presents Crime and Punishment: The Capture of James Whitey Bulger

Source:The New Democrat

James Whitey Bulger. To say that James Whitey Bulger is not your average criminal would be like saying that Larry Bird isn’t your average basketball player. (Another famous Boston figure) I’m not a criminologist obviously and yes it also snows in Minnesota, (thanks Captain Obvious) but Whitey is a criminal genius. And if he gets to spend any real-time outside of his cell in the hell hole that he’s going to die in his fellow inmates are going to be able to learn a lot from him. Unless they’re serving life without in prison as well. Here’s a guy whose guilty of at least nineteen murders and yet up until recently hasn’t spent much of his life in prison. He’s been on the streets for most of his life.

Neo-Nazis
I think the only way you can become a Nazi especially as an adult is like the guy in this story. Is that by in large you’re a good person and you’re doing well in life, but suddenly you find yourself out of work and your bills are piling up and you go years without at least a full-time job. You lose your home and perhaps now living a one-room apartment, or maybe in the basement of your parents home. And you’re trying to figure out where you go from there and you run in people you should have nothing to do with. And they start telling you about the dangers of the other races. In this case non-Caucasians in America especially non-Anglo Saxons. I have a hard time believing that a good person whose grown up with people from other races and ethnicities would suddenly become a racist for no apparent reason.

C-SPAN: Booknotes With Brian Lamb: Christopher Hitchens On Hatred, The Left & His Favorite Authors (1993)

Source:The New Democrat

I guess Chris Hitchens rouge's list would be similar to Richard Nixon's enemies list. Both men have come across a lot of people in life that simply don't like them and who they don't like at all. But when you're a self-described Socialist and you are perhaps even to the left of the British Labour Party, a Democratic Socialist party in Britain where Hitchens is from and you put yourself behind a lot of Far-Left fringe causes like supporting Fidel Castro in the 1960s and calling all sorts of people on the Right like Henry Kissinger and Dick Nixon war criminals, even though you don't apply that label to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in the 2000s, you're going to make a lot of enemies.

Chris Hitchens, I guess was always a Democratic Socialist on economic policy and perhaps social issues, except for perhaps civil liberties where he became a Neoconservative hawk in the 2000s and that is where I'm getting to, because he was a strong defender of President George W. Bush's so-called War on Terror in the 2000s, including the Patriot Act and War in Iraq. You know you're petty unique when you're a Socialist on economic policy and a Neoconservative hawk on national security, foreign policy and civil liberties. Chris Hitchens, was more fun for me and fun to talk about and was funnier when he was a committed Socialist across the board.

Bill Clinton and what Hitchens thinks of President Clinton, is the only thing I'm getting out of this interview. Not that it isn't interesting, but as far as what I want to cover here. Hitchens, accused President Clinton of essentially destroying the welfare state in America. Even though we really never had one, but the signing of the 1996 Welfare to Work Law that required people on Welfare to finish their education and prepare to go to work and go to work. Hitchens uses that to accuse Clinton of essentially ending Welfare and the welfare state in America. And the 1994 Crime Bill is also something that Hitchens uses against Clinton to call him some type of hard-right Conservative.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur: 'Jerry Seinfeld Caught By The Sensitivity Police'

Source:The Young Turks- Comedian Jerry Seinfeld: "What's the deal with political correctness?" LOL

Source:The New Democrat

"Apparently, the bar for racial insensitivity has now been lowered so much that one can be branded with the scarlet "R" for insisting that racial and gender identity issues should be irrelevant in certain circumstances. Merely asserting that merit, and not demographic identifiers which result from accidents of birth, should carry more weight is enough to offend those for whom racial and gender-based grievances suffice for a raison d'être.

Take, for example, Gawker's Kyle Chayka, who objected to comedic legend Jerry Seinfeld's response to a question the performer was asked about his web series, Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, primarily featuring young, white men.

"It really pisses me off," Seinfeld said of the logic behind that question.

"People think that it's the census or something," he observed of comedy in general. "It's gotta represent the actual pie chart of America. Who cares?""* The Young Turks hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian break it down."

From The Young Turks 

Damn! I actually agree with both Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur on the same show, about the same topic. They both just scored a touchdown and converted a two-point conversion in the liberal column for me. Maybe they aren’t as radical and socialist as I give them credit, or blame for. Depending on your perspective.

It would be one thing if Jerry Seinfeld was just talking to comedians of one race, (in this case Caucasian) because that is the only people he wants to talk to. But that is not what this is about. He interviews people he thinks are funny. And in this case the recent comedians he spoke to, all happened to be Caucasian.

It would be one thing if Jerry said (and I can call him Jerry since I’m his German nephew whose not a Nazi) it would be one thing if Jerry said: “Those African-Americans, (or something else) always bitching about how life is tough in America. They can’t take a joke. I’ve seen Marxist dictators with bigger sense of humors. I know this since I interviewed them. If they think they got it so bad in America, why don’t they go back to Africa.”

But Jerry didn’t say anything like that and is not talking to people based on race, or ethnicity. He simply wants to talk to people who make him laugh. This current group he found just happen to all be from the same race.

And oh by the way: if lets say Chris Rock was doing a show and he only interviewed African-American male comedians, no one would be making an issue of this. Well maybe Breitbart, or Fox News. This same argument could be made against affirmative action. Why not just go where the talent is and just judge people as individuals and let the most qualified people regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, get the best jobs. And leave whatever is left for the wannabes of all races, ethnicities, male, female, who gives a damn!

There are times when one group of people, (fill in the blank which group that is) looks a little better than other groups as far as having their members being part of what’s happening in America. That is the way freedom and private enterprise works.

Cenk Uygur made another great point and its the boy who cried wolf analogy. That real racism, is racism. When people are being denied access in life and given harsher treatment simply because of their race, that’s racism. But when you try to apply that label to anything you can think of to try to make people especially who aren’t minorities in this country, look like bigots and have no real evidence of the charge that you’re making, you become the boy, or girl who cries wolf. You end up looking worst than real bigots and sure as hell than the person that you want to look like a bigot.

Crying wolf is like swinging for the fences, (to use a baseball analogy) when you’re a 150 pound shortstop who has never a hit a home run in your life, even in Little League. And every part of the outfield is at least 400 feet away: it doesn’t work.

Public Domain Footage: Robert F. Kennedy- Speech at Columbia University in 1964

Source:Public Domain Footage- Robert F. Kennedy.

Source: The New Democrat

Robert F. Kennedy, running for U.S. Senate in 1964 and not to replace one of his brothers in Massachusetts, but to run for Senate in New York. A great opportunity for Bobby Kennedy as well in 1964. Because Senator Ken Keating, from New York wasn’t very popular in New York. President Lyndon Johnson, was going to win New York in a landslide. And here is where Bobby Kennedy, had an opportunity to jump on Lyndon’s coattails and take a seat in the U.S. Senate in the following Congress.

I believe Kennedy, answered the carpetbagger question very well. Of course with his Irish-Boston accent, he didn’t sound very New York. Either from New York City, or upstate like in Buffalo, or some place. But he grew up in New York City and spent most of his professional career in Washington and had a home in New York. This is not like Hillary Clinton, who grew up in Chicago and spent a lot of her professional career in Arkansas with her husband and then a New York Senate seat opens up in 2000 and she decides she’s going to be the next U.S. Senator from New York. A state where she didn’t have any roots in going in.

I think Bobby Kennedy, answered the presidential question very well to. You can’t run for both President and U.S. Senate at the same time. At least in most states and that would be borderline impossible to do so before you’re actually in the Senate. Kennedy, was clearly a Senate candidate in 1964 for New York. So that was the seat and race he was focused on. And again in 1964, LBJ looked like he would probably run for reelection in 1968 and perhaps even be popular. RFK and LBJ, were both Democrats. So as RFK said, 1972 eight years after 1964 would’ve been the earliest that he could run for president.

Bobby Kennedy’s politics, might have changed a bit from 1964 to 1967-68. But that had to do with the Vietnam War and growing poverty and racial division in America in the late 1960s. But in 1964, I believe RFK was still an establishment Center-Left Liberal Democrat like his brother Jack. And you could argue that he moved left from that by 1967. But in 1964 he was running for U.S. Senate essentially to continue the vision and goals of President Kennedy. Expanding freedom and opportunity to all Americans and dealing with civil rights, equal rights and equality of opportunity for the whole country.
Source:Public Domain Footage

Salon Magazine: Scott Timberg: 'Stop The Hand-Wringing Over Campus PC Culture'

Source:The New Democrat

Scott Timberg, in his column in Salon, which might be the Federal Chief of the Political Correctness Police, wrote the best piece I’ve seen from a New-Left generally pro-political correctness publication about PC. He basically said, “yeah we might do it. But so do they and they’re better at it than we are.” Which is sort of a childish sophomoric argument, but he least he admits his side believes in political correctness. And then he also goes onto say that comedians and other commentators should have free-will in what they’re allowed to talk about. Which is all I argue for in this debate. Free expression and personal responsibility for what you say.

I don’t see what political correctness warriors are fighting for. Do they want a world where everyone whose not male, Caucasian and Christian to not have to be subjected to criticism and humor, even when the criticism and humor is dead on? You’re not going to find that planet in the American galaxy outside of New York City, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco and parts of Los Angeles? Americans, believe in free speech and free expression. Regardless of political affiliation. That is all Americans between the Far-Left and Far-Right. Which is eighty-percent of us. Liberals, invented free speech, so of course they’re in favor of it. Conservatives in the real sense, support free speech. And so do Centrists and Libertarians.

When someone uses humor in an accurate funny way to describe the shortcomings of someone else even if that person is from another group, religion, ethnicity, race, whatever it might be, what do the targets of the humor and criticism have to complain about? It would be one thing if the people doing the criticism and humor, just target one group of people, while they defend their group, or groups to the hill. But even then the commentator is subjected to criticism and reaction about what they said. And if the person is inconsistently critical that will come out and be made public. Especially if a lot of what they say is inaccurate.

But don’t try to shut people up in a liberal democracy of three-hundred and fifteen-million people who has the most liberal guarantee of free speech in the world. At least among large counties and one thing that truly makes America the number one country in the world, our right to be heard, but also our right to listen and to hear what others have to say about what we’ve said. Political correctness warriors, really need to take up pot and vacation in Hawaii. Perhaps start smoking Cuban cigars since they’ll be legal in America again and learn to chill. They’ll live a lot longer and better for it.

POLITICO Magazine: Robert Gordon: The Fight That Changed Political TV Forever

Source:The New Democrat

What this is about is the debate between Conservative Libertarian writer and publisher of the Center-Right publication The National Review, William Buckley and Socialist, or Social Democratic writer and author Gore Vidal. They were brought on as part of ABC New's coverage of the 1968 Republican National Convention and also went on to debate each other the Democratic National Convention that year as well. They were brought in by ABC News to offer contrarian views of what was going on at those conventions. Bill Buckley, was supposed to represent the Right, or the Republican point of view. And Gore Vidal, was there to represent the Left, I guess the entire Left and the Democratic point of view.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should if you're familiar with American politics today. Because that is now how its done, whether the coverage comes from the broadcast networks, or the cable news networks. You have a moderator which back then for ABC News would've been Howard Smith and today depending on which network you'll have that network, or news division's lead anchor lead their coverage of the conventions. And they would have several reporters there from their team to report what is actually happening. And then have an analyst from each side to tell people what they believe this all means. But that was not how it was done back in the late 1960s. Where you would have two people who are ideologically completely different debating what is going on.

But what happened at ABC News at the 1968 RNC was not CNN Crossfire of today. Howard Smith, was there to moderate and lead the discussion between Buckley and Vidal. But the problem is Buckley and Vidal were in separate rooms as Smith and you could barely hear, or see Smith during this debate. If you're familiar with Howard K. Smith, you know he wasn't some who was short on words and opinions. He had an opinion on practically everything. From things that he was very informed about like politics, to things where he wasn't that informed on like sports. But when you have a debate between two of the sharpest and quick-witted people at least in politics, but the media as well and perhaps in general and they don't even respect yet like each other, it is very hard to get any word in edgewise.

So what happens in 1968 at the RNC between Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal is what we saw with Crossfire in the 1980s and 90s. Essentially a free for all without a moderator. Where the two debaters would make their points, but also listen to the other side. They would debate and moderate the same discussion at the same time. With poor Howard Smith acting not much more as a presiding officer at a U.S. Senate session, or something. Perhaps signing autographs, or catching up on paperwork. And really just serving a ceremonial role. But that debate because of the two men who were involved and what they were talking about and the year that it happened in 1968, made for great TV. And changed how politics would be covered on TV in the future.

Jim Morrison: The Bad Boy of Classic Rock

Source:The Doors- The Lizard King Jim Morrison, performing in I believe 1968. Possibly London, England.

Source:The New Democrat

“Flashback Friday, this week brings the story of famous American singer and poet James Douglas ‘Jim’ Morrison. Known widely as the lead vocalist of psychedelic rock band ‘The Doors’, Jim was a charismatic singer and regarded as the most iconic figures of popular rock music history. He is remembered today for his outrageous stage performances and rebellious lifestyle other than his unforgettable songs and lyrics.

Jim Morrison was born on December 8, 1949 in Melbourne, Florida. Jim was a dutiful and intelligent child, a voracious reader and a passionate diarist. Morrison joined University of California at Los Angeles after graduating from high school to study film. It was here at UCLA that he developed an avid interest in poetry.

Ray Manzarek, a former classmate from UCLA and Jim came with an idea of putting together a band for which they recruited Robbie Krieger as the guitarist and John Densomore as the drummer and began calling themselves ‘The Doors’. Elektra Records signed the Doors in 1966-67 for a recording contract. After the modest success of their first single, “Break on Through” it was their second single, “Light My Fire,” which catapulted the band to the forefront of the rock and roll world, reaching No. 1 on music charts. The group became known for its charismatic stage personality and its hypnotic music and Jim gained a reputation for erratic public behaviour.

In a small but inspiring journey, Jim Morrison led a bohemian life and remained infamous for alcohol dependency, drug use, violent temper and infidelity which led him into many troubles and life long depression.

In an attempt to get his life back in order, he took time off The Doors and moved to Paris where he departed at the age of 27, on July 3 1971, allegedly due to heroine overdose. His early death deprived the world of beautiful music and poetry. However, the most legendary and mysterious rockstar of all time, Jim Morrison continues to inspire many disaffected people around the world, who in his words find the expression of their hopes and frustration!

His legacy and popularity can be best testified in the fact that his grave located at Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris is one of the world’s most visited resting place to this day."

From Fame Music

Jim Morrison aka The Lizard King, is the bad boy and frontman of classic rock and blues rock. I’m not interested in heavy metal and punk rock, where I’m sure you’ll find guys who got into more trouble and perhaps had even bigger addiction problems. Curt Cobain and Axel Rose come to mind damn fast for me. But, the heavy reliance and influence of black leather that you saw at least in the 1980s and 1990s especially with the leather jeans, boots, jackets, came from Jim Morrison. Which just to my point about how big a deal The Lizard King is when it comes to rock and roll and not just classic rock and blues rock where he made his biggest impact. But again heavy metal when you’re talking about wardrobe with the leather jeans, boots and jackets. That Jim Morrison made a staple of his wardrobe in the late 1960s, when almost no one else outside biker culture was wearing at all.

I don’t know of a frontman that meant more to his band than Jim Morrison. Not to take anything away from Ray Manzarek especially, who was great on the keyboards and also had a great singing voice. And Robby Krieger was an excellent guitarist and John Densmore could play the drums. But The Doors are famous because of Jim Morrison, but Morrison wouldn’t have needed The Doors at least the group that was put together to be famous and successful. How many other rock frontman at least from that generation, had the intelligence, the wit, the writing ability and then throw in the style that The Lizard King had. In an era where frontman looked somewhat preppy except for the long hair and looked like hippies, I mean we are talking about the late 1960s after all, Jim Morrison is wearing a black leather suit. Skin-tight black leather jeans, that would be called skinny leathers today. With a black leather suit jacket, an Indian concho belt and black suede and leather boots.

Jim Morrison not just put leather jeans on the map in rock and roll, but leather period. To the point that Elvis Presley starts wearing a black leather suit in the late 60s and early 70s. John Kay, from Steppenwolf has his own Lizard King outfit. With a leather vest, black leather jeans and an Indian belt. The hard rockers of the 1980s Kiss, Motley Crew, Guns N Roses, as well as heavy metal bands like Skid Row, are all wearing leather jackets and leather jeans. But much more casually than Jim Morrison and wore biker jackets and t-shirts with their leathers. Morrison, again was a rebel and did his own thing and did it so well that he made it so cool and had others following him. To the point that there are countless Doors cover bands and Jim Morrison covers. With the Jim Morrison figure always in his black leather and concho belt and at times with the black leather jacket.

But with The Lizard King, it’s not just his leather rock and roll fashion. And the fact that perhaps no other man has ever wore a black leather suit better. Or the fact that thousands of women went to Doors concerts to check the man out every night and to see what he would do on the stage next. But it was also his music and the fact that he and The Doors did their own thing and made their own music and to a certain extent sung about the times the 1960s, but did it their own way. Morrison, especially didn’t want to fit in some place, but instead create his own place that was even different from his own band members from again how he carried and presented himself on stage. And then see if others would follow him. The Baby Boom Generation, the 1960s rockers who made it big in that decade, lost three great stars. Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. But I’m not sure as great as Jimi and Janis would’ve been even combined would’ve they’ve meant more to rock and roll than Jim Morrison. The Lizard King was one in a kind and great at simply being himself as an entertainer. And we haven’t seen anyone as good, or similar since.

TIME: Lilly Rothman: See What Happened When Feminists Squared Off With Hugh Hefner in 1970

Source:The New Democrat

I liked what they did in the video by separating the feminists from the militant feminists. Feminists, at least by definition are people who support equal rights for women. That women should be treated equally under law and with the same rights as men. Which would mean most Americans are feminists regardless of gender and make feminism a very mainstream philosophy when it comes to how the genders should be treated in society. Militant feminists, as this video made clear, are essentially anti-male. And believe women are not only superior, but should be treated better with more authority under law than men.

The 1970s, by in large was very good decade for women even with the American economy being in the toilet for most of that decade. With two bad recessions. 1974-75 and another one in 1979. Energy shortages starting in 1973 and that lasted the rest of the decade. High inflation and interest rates, high unemployment and a high cost of living. And yet American women were going to work. Managing business’s and starting their own business’s. American women, got control of their reproductivity with the right to decide when to end and start a pregnancy. Thanks to the 1973 Roe V. Wade from the U.S. Supreme Court. There’s a lot to like about the 1970s for a true feminist.

The Hugh Hefner thing. You would have a hard time finding a bigger target and I don’t mean physically, but someone who is hated more by the militant feminists than Hugh Hefner. With how Playboy Magazine shows women and portrays them, he is exactly what man-hating militant feminists hate about men. Even though Playboy doesn’t and can’t force any of their models and female employees to not just pose sexually for the magazine, but they can’t force women to pose at all for the magazine. But according to militant feminists you would think the women at Playboy are forced to pose for those photos, or something. Even though they are all employees and women want to work and pose there. And are compensated very well there.

Movie Station: The Graduate (1967) Dustin Hoffman, Katharine Ross & Anne Bancroft Star

Source:Movie Station- Dustin Hoffman & Katherine Ross.

Source:The New Democrat

I saw The Graduate for the fourth, or fifth time Sunday morning. Not exactly keeping count. When I was killing time and waiting to meet a friend that I got together very early with on Sunday. My friend and I had this little minor debate going on whether, or not Anne Bancroft, who I think is the star of this movie, whether she is overrated in this movie. This movie, is Ann Bancroft’s defining role. She is known as Mrs. Robinson and for very good reasons. Because she played a beautiful, sexy, very cute, witty, intelligent, seductress who knew exactly what she wanted and what she didn’t want. And how to get what she wanted and stop what she didn’t want.

My friend and I, off an on, the last couple of weeks, have been discussing whether Anne is overrated physically, or not. I agree with my friend, that she’s not the best looking women of the 1960s, or from her generation lets say. But I haven’t heard anyone suggest that she is. But she was a very cute, beautiful, sexy women and a hell of an actress and her role and how she played it, is critical to this movie. It’s the Dustin Hoffman character, not the actor, but Ben Braddock, who I’m not impressed with. He’s just graduated from college with a college degree. And has no idea what the hell he wants to do with his life. He sort of has the personality of a hit man. Someone who speaks in very short if not one word sentences. Who prefers to be by himself, someone what emotionally distant and doesn’t show much if any emotion.

And that is pretty much what makes The Graduate work. A beautiful sexy cute witty intelligent women, in Mrs. Robinson, who is not happy with her marriage and perhaps life in general. Who uses Ben Braddock, who is lost and doesn’t know where he’s going, to fill whatever void that she has with her husband. Which is physical attraction, attention, sex, the feeling that she’s still beautiful and sexy. Which of course she is, but perhaps her husband, played by Murray Hamilton, has lost something perhaps downstairs and up. But the thing is, the people around Ben, his family actually do care about him and want him to be happy and they along with Mr. Robinson, set up Ben with the Robinson’s daughter. Elaine Robinson, played by the beautiful and adorable Katharine Ross.

That is pretty much how this movie goes. Mrs. Robinson, doesn’t want Ben to date her daughter. She wants Ben as his sex partner and doesn’t believe Ben is good enough for his daughter. But the date goes on anyway and Ben at first tries to comply with Mrs. Robinson and intentionally makes the date horrible for Elaine and is distant the whole time and takes her to a strip club even. Great way to lose a date if that is your goal, but discovers that he’s been a real asshole, to be blunt about it. And that he’s really hurt Elaine who didn’t deserve it. And tries to make it up to her and they have a really good date after that.

Again, Mrs. Robinson, doesn’t want Ben with her daughter. To the point that she tells her about the actual affair that she had with Ben. And even goes to far and tells Elaine, that Ben raped her. Which of course didn’t happen. And Elaine dumps him and goes away for graduate school and Ben spends the rest of the movie trying to win her back. The first forty-five minutes of this movie, are very good and very funny. Mrs. Robinson, tries to seduce Ben two times and swings and misses. Ben, probably feeling way to guilty to take her up on her very generous offer. The third pitch, is thrown by Ben this time and he offers himself to her and invites her to a hotel. This is a great movie about people who aren’t very happy with themselves. And don’t know where they’re going until they get there.
Source:Movie Station

Radical Films: Let it Burn: The Coming Destruction of The USA? (1968)

Source:The New Democrat

It’s good to hear a prominent African-American leader support the Right to Self-Defense. Especially with Robert Williams being on the New-Left, or Far-Left in America and a self-described Communist. And I say that, because if there’s one large population in America that has suffered a lot of violence and abuse against them, it’s the African-American community in America. If there’s one community that deserves that right more than anyone else, it would be this community. And I tend to fall on the side of the Martin King social democratic wing of the civil rights movement. But its easy to see why people who have suffered so much against them, would want and need the Right to Self-Defense.

The civil rights movement in America, was multi-racial and multi-political as far as ideology. You had a pacifist social democratic wing in it. Led by Dr. King and his organization. You had a liberal wing that was always talking about self-empowerment and empowering African-Americans to take control of their lives. That also believed in the Right to Self-Defense, led by Malcolm X. And you had a New-Left wing, Communist even, that believed in Black Power and part of that power was using violence against violence and self-protection and defense. Led by the Black Panther Party and many other groups on the New-Left in America.

It sounds like to me that Rob Williams, became more radical as he left America for Cuba in the 1960s. He was President of the NAACP in North Carolina. The NAACP, is a mainstream center-left organization. That is about racial-equality and other issues. It is not a group of Socialists and Communists by in large. And perhaps Williams got tired of all the violence and racism that he was seeing in America and believed he was being persecuted by the U.S. Government. And decided that he needed to change his politics and needed a different approach to take on racism in America and push for racial-equality.

CNN: Paula Zahn Now- Jane Fonda in 2005

Source:CNN- Hollywood Goddess and New-Left political activist Jane Fonda, talking to CNN in 2005.

Source:The New Democrat 

“JANE FONDA TALKS TO PAULA ZAHN ABOUT HER ANGUISH OVER VIETNAM, 2005 {33}”

Source:Talk Vietnam- Larry King Live in 2005.

From Talk Vietnam

I think there really are two Jane Fonda’s: the great, sexy beautiful baby-faced adorable actress, who is arguably the greatest actress of her generation. With perhaps only Liz Taylor being better. And then there’s the New-Left political activist, that emerges on the American political scene in the late 1960s and is there throughout the 1970s. Who U.S. Military veterans see as The Devil. Who the New-Left/Far-Left in America, see as one of their heroes. Perhaps right there with Karl Marx and many others.

And I think it’s hard to cover both sides of Jane’s career in one post. But she’s made a huge mark in both careers that she’s had, I’m going to give it a shot.

It’s not being against the Vietnam War, that made Jane Fonda controversial. I mean, the country up until the early 1970s, was split on that issue. It’s still the worst war that America has ever been in. As far as all the pain, suffering and deaths and how it’s effected future president’s and Congress’s and how they go to war.

It’s how Jane was against this war that really sets her apart. And puts in the anti-war movement in America that makes it easy to portray her as anti-American, if not Un-American. When you accuse the President of the United States of being a war criminal and you take a picture with the enemy and you call Americans soldiers murderers, it’s easy to see how people who love America would hate you.

The positive side of Jane Fonda’s career: again, perhaps the best actress of her generation, ( The Silent Generation: Americans born in the late 1920s and 1930s, primarily )  I think only Liz Taylor would be better than Jane. And you look at Jane’s movies like Walk on The Wild Side, The Chase, The China Syndrome, some of the best movies ever and she had a great part and was great in all of them, its easy to see why she’s had such a great career. And inheriting Henry Fonda’s genes, doesn’t hurt either.

But as a political activist and I’ll go concentrate on the Vietnam War, perhaps some of her other activities, I probably agree with her on, she stands out as a real New-Left, or Far-Left radical, that has pissed off a lot of Americans. Who by-in large would probably like and love her a lot otherwise.

Dark Lord ABC: Bill Maher With Charlie Rose

Source:Dark Lord ABC- Real Time With Bill Maher, on Charlie Rose in 2014.

Source:The New Democrat

"Bill Maher, host of HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher."
Air Date 9/9/2014."

From Dark Lord ABC

I disagree with Bill Maher on a couple of things here. The thing about Islam, I’m not a Muslim and that has to do with the fact that I’m not a fan of Islam. Its way too conservative for me as a religion, especially as it relates to women’s issues and social issues in general. But if Islam and Muslims were as prone to violence, America would be a lot more dangerous place. We have what, five-million Muslims in America and not all of them live in Detroit and the state of Michigan. If Muslims were as violent as Maher seems to think, America would be a hell of a lot more violent than it is right now. Without Muslims committing so many violent acts in America.

I agree with Maher on one thing about Liberals and disagree with him on another. He said that he gets booed by Liberals in his audience. Well unless he’s saying something to the effect that public education should be outlawed, homosexuality should be outlawed and it should be illegal for women to work and vote, which is what Ann Coulter seems to believe, it’s not Liberals that are booing him. Maher gets booed by his so-called supporters when he says something that is not politically correct with his illiberal politically correct audience. Who believe that language that offends them and people they care about, should be censored. Free speech, liberal. Political correctness, illiberal fascism.

And where I agree with Maher as it relates to Liberals. The polling about who is Liberal and who is Conservative and who is Socialist and who is Libertarian, is simply wrong. If you look at all the cultural war issues right now, especially social issues, America is a very liberal country. We believe in free speech, right to privacy, personal freedom in general. And also believe in public education, infrastructure investment, comprehensive immigration reform, a safety net for people who need it. We are also a lot more Socialist than we get credit for, because a lot of people who call themselves Liberals, are actually Socialists. Like a lot of Bill Maher’s audience.

Oxford Union: 'Bill Maher Full Q&A'

Source:Oxford Union- Comedian & political satirist Bill Maher.

Source:The New Democrat

"William "Bill" Maher, Jr. is an American comedian, writer, producer, political commentator, actor, media critic, and television host. As a television host, he is well known for the HBO political talk show Real Time with Bill Maher (2003–present). Maher previously hosted a similar late-night show called Politically Incorrect, originally on Comedy Central and later on ABC.

Maher is known for his sarcastic attitude, political satire and sociopolitical commentary. He targets many topics including religion, politics, bureaucracies, political correctness, and the mass media."

From Oxford Union

Bill Maher, I would describe politically as a Socialist-Liberal. Liberal, on personal and social issues, especially freedom of speech. Where he puts basically no limits on it. And neither do I really, other than libel, harassment and inciting violence. But, he’s pretty Far-Left on economic policy and consistently endorses big government socialism and higher taxes on everyone, to pay for new government social spending. And says that government should take over this and that and education is one of his examples. And he’s in favor of a maximum income and other big government socialist policies. And that America, should be like Europe, perhaps across the board.

But when it comes to especially free speech issues and the right to offend, especially when he’s right, I’ve backed him on every single so-called controversy that he’s brought to himself in the last year. As Maher says, he’s the real Liberal when it comes to talking about religion and talking about what he doesn’t like about it. But what separates Maher from lets say Ben Affleck, or Salon, or the AlterNet, or some other Far-Left publication, is that Maher when he criticizes religion, just doesn’t pick on Christianity. The Far-Left, picks on Christianity, because they see it as a redneck religion, that only Southern rural Caucasians follow.

The Far-Left, won’t at least openly criticize any non-Caucasian, especially women and any non-Western religion, because they see that as bigotry, or at least that’s what they say. And what separates a Bill Maher, or Sam Harris, from Ben Affleck and his followers, is that Maher and Harris criticize religion and people that they disagree with and have serious issues with. Regardless of their religion and ethnicity, or race. But again to the Far-Left, the fake liberals on the Left, any criticism of non-Christians, non-Jews, non-Caucasians, people of non-Western descent, is considered bigotry to them. Where Bill Maher as a social Liberal lets say, believes in Free Speech. And that means the right to speak freely, even if you offend people. Especially when you’re right.

The Alfred Hitchcock Hour: Captive Audience (1962) James Mason & Angie Dickinson Star

Source:IMDB- Angie Dickinson and James Mason starring on The Alfred Hitchcock Hour, in 1962.

Source:The New Democrat

“A mystery novelist sends a series of weird audiotapes to his publisher. On the first tape, the author boasts that the publisher won’t be able to discern if the story he narrates is the history of an imminent murder – or a mere fantasy. The author tells of his brief marriage ending when his wife was killed after he lost control of their car.

They were kissing, making up after an argument over his wife’s staying out all night with a rich old man, the same evening the author was briefly with the man’s alluring, young wife Janet. Janet made a pass at the author, who immediately cut the evening short.

The author says he fell into a severe depression, declined a needed brain operation, moved from France to San Francisco where he changed his name, then became a mystery writer. The tapes relate how the author eventually ran into Janet , and though she’s still married, dived into an affair.

When she and the author begin to plan her husband’s murder, the publisher calls in another of his mystery novelists to determine: are these tapes just an unorthodox pitch of a new novel – or the bizarre confession of a deranged killer?”

From David Stevens 

“The Alfred Hitchcock Hour S01E05 Captive Audience”

Source:The New Democrat- Angie Dickinson starring on The Alfred Hitchcock Hour, in 1962.

From Public Domanin

Arnold Moss (on the left) plays the publisher of the publishing company that the James Mason character writes books for. Ed Nelson (on the right) is also an author who writes for that same company. The video that this photo is from is not currently available online right now.

Source:The New Democrat- Arnold Moss & Ed Nelson.

"Barbara Dane sings on Hitchcock" 

Source:Dead Not Music- Angie Dickinson & James Mason.

From Dead Not Music

The Captive Audience, is about a man Warren Barrow, ( played by James Mason ) who is a mystery writer, who at the very least wants his publisher to believe that he’s going to kill his girlfriend’s husband and then later his girlfriend, Janet West, ( played by Angie Dickinson ) and sends his publisher, Victor Hartman, ( played by Arnold Moss ) what today would be called a cassette book.

Barrow, has written a book on tape about the murders that he wants his publisher to believe that he’s committed. Barrow, at the very least, is unstable, after losing his wife in a car accident and suffering brain injuries that he’s never recovered from.

Victor Hartman, brings in one of his other writers, Tom Keller, ( played by Ed Nelson ) to listen to Barrow’s self-confession tapes, to see what Keller thinks of the tapes. Hartman and Keller, are trying to figure out whether Barrow has just completed his latest murder mystery, or is he serious about murdering these two people. His girlfriend and her husband.

They decide that Barrow is serious about these murders and even talk to him about his book. And give him some constructive criticism about his book. Barrow, being unstable, doesn’t take the criticism well and freaks out about it. And takes it as if Hartman and Keller simply don’t understand the book.

Angie Dickinson, is hardly an angel on this show. Just looks like one, but her character Janet West, is married to a wealthy man whose old enough to be her father and she’s not in love with him. She uses men to get what she wants and uses Barrow as well and doesn’t love him either.

And this is all part of why Barrow is at the very least considering murdering her. He’s very unstable and doesn’t handle rejection and being used very well. They do a very good job with this episode of not making it clear whether Barrow actually murders his girlfriend, or is this simply part of his book. He’s writing a murder mystery that actually doesn’t happen in real-life. And it’s one of the better murder mysteries that I at least, have ever seen.

Alfred Hitchcock TV Series: Murder Case

Source:The New Democrat

This is one of the better episodes of the Alfred Hitchcock Hour, simply because of the people in it. You have two up incoming actors Diana Justin, played by Hollywood Goddess Gena Rowlands and Lee Griffin, played by John Cassavetes, who were once a couple themselves, who meet again on set in London for a play they’re in. They discover that they’re still hot for each other and want to get back together. The problem is, Diana is married to Charles Justin, played by Murray Matheson. Charles, is a very wealthy jewelry dealer, who is also old enough to be Diana’s father. To put it mildly, Diana is not with Charles because she loves him. But that is fine with Charles, as long as she makes him feel good.

This new couple, sets out to murder Diana’s husband. They fail once with the breaks in Charles’s car and try it again. Another thing I like about this show, is Charles is not rich, because he’s stupid, or dense. He knows that Diana and Lee are back together and might even try something dangerous. Which is why he sends his wife on vacation to get her away from her boyfriend. Diana, figures out that Charles is on to her, but Charles still wants her. And if you’re familiar with Gena Rowlands, you can easily see why. Doesn’t take a genius, or even someone with average intelligence to figure it out. And Charles, is not going to give up his goddess wife without a clean fight.

Murder Case, despite its simplistic and dull as a brand new pencil title, is one of the better episodes in the Alfred Hitchcock Hour series. It has a great cast and a great plot. Normally in shows like this when the older wealthy husband figures out that his young gorgeous sexy wife, is having an affair with a young man, he dumps his wife as soon as he can. He hires detectives, he gets all the evidence that he needs to get a clean divorce. So he doesn’t have to pay his cheating wife anything. But Charlie, fights for his wife and knows exactly what is going on all the way up to the end. And is just one example of why this is such a great show.