The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- ‘Harry Reid Full Of Cat Shit On Filibuster Nuclear Option’

Source:The Young Turks- U.S. Senate Leaders Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky) and Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) Seriously, is this the best we can do to lead the U.S. Senate? 

Source:FreeState MD 

“… Reid said he is prepared to use the “nuclear option” should Republicans not agree to approve the seven nominees. Current rules require 67 votes to change Senate rules, but the Nevada senator’s move would allow for the change in Senate filibuster procedure with a simple majority of 51 votes.

‘I’m going to go to the floor on Tuesday and do what I need to do so this doesn’t happen anymore,’ Reid said about the potential blocking of nominees.”*

Cenk Uygur breaks it down.” 

From The Young Turks 

I was watching a little of C-SPAN today before I went bike riding and went out and did what I needed to do. Why, because I’m a political junky who is interested in other things than the George Zimmerman case. And actually interested in important news that affects the country and that makes me un-American, then so be it.

C-SPAN was showing a debate in the U.S. Senate and for all of you Zimmerman trial junkies who are perhaps reading this blog by accident, thinking this was also about George Zimmerman, one turn off your TV. 

But C-SPAN is the network that covers the United States Congress and other current affairs events that are going on the country. And C-SPAN was showing an old Senate debate from 2005 when the then Senate Republican majority and the last one that they’ve had wanted to eliminate the filibuster on executive appointments. I was watching this old Senate debate and couldn’t, but help notice the hypocrisy on both sides.

If I had to guess there was more hypocrisy coming from the Republican side led by then Senate Assistant Leader Mitch McConnell. Who is now of course the Minority Leader a job he’s had since 2007 when Democrats took control of Congress. And if I had to bet there’s probably more hypocrisy coming from Senate Republicans than Democrats. But if this were some crazy contest it would be a nail biter. I mean it would be like trying to decide which is redder: or the red apple or tomato? How would you and besides why would you care?

Neither side has been very responsible here. But guess what, this is Congress and why would the Senate be responsible anyway, they don’t work for a living. Neither does the House of Representatives in too many cases as well. But the same people led by Mitch McConnell today Senator Orin Hatch and Senator Jeff Sessions all members of the Judiciary Committee and then Senate Leader Bill Frist who first proposed the so-called nuclear-option, are now saying this is a power grab by Senate Democrats and they’re the ones being unfair.

“Sure, if we do this, we’re acting in the best interest of our party, I mean country. But when the other side does it, it is a complete abuse of power and unconstitutional”. I mean seriously anyone who is actually familiar with Congress, still wondering why they have a ten-percent approval rating? And who are these ten-percent anyway? Any of them not living in mental hospitals and not in comas. Perhaps whoever does these polls, counts dead people. You know, the way they vote in Illinois, Louisiana and New Jersey.

Where do Congress people come up with these labels? “We’re saying the Democratic obstructionism is out of control. And we need to do away with the filibuster? Are now saying that: “The filibuster is a check on absolute power in America”. On the Democratic side back in 2005 led by then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid who is now of course the Leader to go along with Senator Chuck Schumer who is also on the Judiciary Committee to go along with Senator Jack Reid, Senator Evan Bayh and others, those Democrats were saying eliminating the Senate filibuster would be a power grab.

“We’re saying that eliminating the filibuster would be an abuse of power and go against two-hundred years of Senate tradition and so-forth”. Wait, aren’t these Democrats supposed to be the Liberals, what do they care about tradition?

But now Senate Democrats are saying that: “The filibuster now represents ruling by minority. With one minority party in this case the Senate Republican Conference led by Mitch McConnell now running and having veto say on how the executive and judicial branches can now operate. When instead they are just supposed to be one voice and a minority voice at that”.

The point being that there’s enough hypocrisy and hypocritical people (to be nice) bullshit artists (to be accurate) here to form their own national club of bullshit artists. “We’re a club that creates and promotes bullshit across the country”. Apparently the agriculture sector is really struggling and then they need to create this national club, because they aren’t producing enough bullshit. Apparently Winnie the Bull is sick or something.

This club wouldn’t need any other members because all the available spaces would be filled by the United States Senate and an example of why ninety-percent of Americans dislike Congress. Because we have a lot of Senators like this. This whole Senate filibuster debate is all about “do what I say not what I do. Forget about my past record because this is what is important now and what I believe in”. They sound like your parents, right.

Which of course is the easiest near advantage that they can use against the other side and hit them as hard as they can with it until they lose power. Apparently unaware that will be used against them once they are out of power. Rather than doing what is best for the Senate and respecting the true role of the Senate as the upper chamber in Congress and its role in the Federal Government.

Bing Crosby & Grace Kelly: High Society (1956)

Source:Veronique Laurent - Bing Crosby and The Amazing Grace Kelly, in High Society, from 1956.

Source:The Daily Journal

"The lovely Grace Kelly in her final film role before she retired from acting and became Princess Grace of Monaco." 

From Veronique Laurent

I’ve only seen bits and pieces of High Society, which to me anyway as someone who isn’t at least a full-time movie critic, is a pretty overrated movie. But I kind of like this scene, because Grace plays a somewhat stuck up, spoiled, young woman, who doesn’t like her parents that much, especially her father and they don’t approve of her completely. And she wants to get pass that and decides the way to move pass that, is to marry a pretty boring man who no one close to her is crazy about.

Grace Kelly's character's ex-husband (played by Bing Crosby) sees right through that and is telling her, that she could be a special person if she just let her guard down and have feeling for other people’s feelings. 

Bing’s character was being sort of a constructive critic towards Grace’s character. A new man Tracy’s life (played by Grace) Mike Connor (played by Frank Sinatra) also sees Tracy’s wall that she has built around herself and tries to knock it down in this movie as well.

Juan Traverus: 1979 Jordache Denim Jeans Commercial

Source:Juan Traverus- Rear look at Jordache Jeans.

Source:The Daily Journal

“Classic Jordache Jeans commercial from 1979!!!”

From Juan Traverus 

I just want to say thank God I was born in 1975 and I’m old enough to remember the tight dark wash denim designer jeans revolution of the late 1970s, that went up to 1984 or 85 or so. Before 1977 or 78 jeans on women tend to be baggy and real thin and loose in the legs and in many cases the pant would hit the ground. If you are familiar with the early 1970s and even the mid 1970s, or the hippie era, you know what I’m talking about.

In 1977 and 78 that changed and women’s jeans denim leather became tight and reveling. Showing your legs and butt as a sexy women became popular. And you started seeing a lot of women in their tight dark wash designer denim jeans on TV a lot and in the movies and out in public and you saw sexy female celebrities showing off their hot bodies in them. The jeans in boots look started in the late 1970s, not 2005-06.

The designer denim jeans for women sort of went out of style by 1986 or so and unfortunately were replaced with acid wash and unfortunately I’m old enough to remember that as well. But smart enough to never where them. And then in the late 1990s the dark wash designer denims came back into style and have been with us ever since and have just gotten tighter with skinny denim trend.

NFL Films: NFL 1968-Super Bowl 3-Baltimore Colts vs. New York Jets: Fourth Quarter

Source:NFL Films- Broadway Joe Namath, leaving Miami, after leading the New York Jets to victory in Super Bowl 4.

Source:The Daily Journal 

“Two future Hall of Fame quarterbacks faced off on the grandest stage of all as the Baltimore Colts and Johnny Unitas took on the New York Jets and “Broadway” Joe Namath, who guaranteed victory for his team.”

From the NFL 

With all due respect to the 1968 New York Jets, Super Bowl 3 is a much different game had Colts QB John Unitas who was still the best QB in pro football at this point, been healthy and at full strength against the Jets and not dealing with a sore throwing arm. Because the Colts with Earl Morral who was a solid, but journeyman NFL QB, drove the ball up and down the field against the Jets defense in the first half. But the Colts had to settle for a short field goal attempt that they missed. And Morall missed Colts WR Jimmy Orr in the end zone and under the ball that was picked off by a Jets DB. A healthy Unitas hits Orr in the end zone.

The Colts should’ve had 10-14 points if not more in the first and you are looking a much different game going into the second half. With the Colts having a 10 or 14-7 lead knowing they can move the ball up and down the field against the Jets. And knowing their great defense can shut down the Jets.

Russia Today: Barack Obama- 'A Socialist in Disguise?'

Source:Russia Today- President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today, talking about whether President Barack Obama is actually a Socialist. Newsflash: Vlad and Barry are not friends.

Source:FreeState MD 

"Obama: Socialist in disguise?" 

From Russia Today 

"RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya (Russian: Россия Сегодня))[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television or free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an autonomous non-profit organization founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[8][18] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[19][20][21] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (2010–2022),[22][23] RT UK (2014–2022) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[6][7]

RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[58] and conspiracy theories.[65] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[72]

In 2012, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[73] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[17][74] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a foreign agent with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[75]

RT was banned in Ukraine in 2014 after Russia's annexation of Crimea;[76] Latvia and Lithuania implemented similar bans in 2020.[77][78] Germany banned RT DE in February 2022.[79] After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland and then the entire European Union announced they were formally banning RT as well, while independent service providers in over 10 countries suspended broadcasts of RT.[80][81] Social media websites followed by blocking external links to RT's website and restricting access to RT's content.[82][83] Microsoft removed RT from their app store and de-ranked their search results on Bing,[84][85] while Apple removed the RT app from all countries except for Russia." 

From Wikipedia

I agree Barack Obama may be the worst Socialist ever for the simple reason he’s not a Socialist. And the same thing could be said about George W. Bush being the worst Conservative ever because he wasn’t very conservative, if you look at his record when it came to fiscal policy, especially spending and civil liberties. 

To be a Socialist you, you must be a Socialist. I know that sounds crazy, but to be tall, you actually have to be tall. A man can’t just say one day: "Now dammit (or something stronger) I’m tired of being 5’7 and short. So today I declare myself as 6’1 and tall." Why, because that man will still be 5’7. Calling yourself something doesn’t make you that. A patrol officer can’t just make themselves a sergeant and call themselves that. They have to be promoted to sergeant first.

Calling yourself something or calling someone else something, doesn’t make them what you’re calling them or yourself that, if you or they aren’t actually that. If I’ve lost you on that, I’m not surprised, I’m feeling dizzy from just writing that. 

To be a Socialist, you must have a socialist record and socialist policies and ideas. Which is just not there in Barack Obama’s case. Unless you want to play guilt by association (In other words: Joe McCarthy) Meaning people Barry has been associated with in the past, Bill Ayers comes to mind, the guy hosting this show, Al Sharpton, now here’s someone you could make a serious case about being a Socialist.

But the charges against President Obama are just Tea Party propaganda trying to make a man they hate, seen as Un-American as not one of them and must be defeated and stopped at all costs. So they use one of the most unpopular words in the American-English dictionary which is socialist and socialism and so-forth, trying to make Barack Obama seem as worst then he is to scare people. Thats the modern GOP divide and conquer when you don’t have a popular message of your own.

Mitch: Chicago 1968: The Democratic Convention

Source:Mitch- I guess this couple was at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Hopefully they survived the experience.

Source:FreeState MD 

"1968 Democratic Convention special." 

From Mitch

1968 is when the Democratic Party changed and no longer became a Northeastern progressive party with a Southern coalition, made up of people who basically make up the Religious-Right and Neo-Confederate wing of the Republican Party today. By 1968, the Democratic Party was moving away from the South and becoming the party of the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast, as well as the Mid Atlantic.

With the emergence of what I call the Green Party wing of the Democratic Party, that is represented by the so-called Progressive Caucus in Congress that you see today in the Green Party, but also in Occupy Wall Street, the Democratic Party now had a major, left-wing in it. And this is how the Democratic Party lost the White House in 1968 because Classical Liberals on their Right and Progressives on the Center-Left in the party were now divided between the New-Left in the party made up of Socialists-Anarchists, as well as Communists. The group called Students For a Democratic Society then was what Occupy Wall Street is of today.

The Democratic Party lost in 1968 because they were divided by their two wings on the Left: The FDR/LBJ Progressive coalition, with this new coalition that’s called the New-Left, people who are against war (at all costs) but are in favor of using violence to get their message across. Who are against American capitalism and corporate America, but in favor of the New Deal and Great Society, but would expand into what’s known in Europe as the welfare state. What the Green Party today calls the Green New Deal.

The Green Deal would be a whole host of new Federal Government social programs to finish off of what the New Deal and Great Society didn’t accomplish. 

The New-Left then made up of Students For a Democratic Society and Occupy Wall Street today, are not Pacifists in the sense that they are against violence and would never use violence. They just don’t want violence coming from their government, but are more than willing to use it against government or people in society. That represent what they do not like about America, like private corporations.

1968 is basically when the Democratic Party basically became three political parties: New Democrat Liberals, the center-right, (where I am) the FDR Progressives or what’s left of them, and Occupy Wall Street today or the Green Party. That sees the Democratic Party and the Republican Party as the same party, but with different names. 

And even as split as the Democratic Party was back then, they still came within a state or two of winning the 1968 presidential election. But they would’ve done much better without the split happening all in one party.

Scott Scherer: 'The Last Days of the Old Cleveland Browns'

Source:Scott Scherer- that famous 1987 AFC Championship Game between the Cleveland Browns and Denver Broncos, with Browns RB Earnest Byner's fumble.

Source:The Daily Journal

"With the recent start to the football season, Art Modell's passing, and the recent showing of "Cleveland '95" (NFL) on the NFL Network, it seemed timely to put this video I made up for viewing.  When I first heard the song "These Days", the storyline of the Browns immediately came to mind.

"But its alright, yea its alright, say its alright...easy for you to say"

From Scott Sherer

This looks more like the story of the 1990s Browns before they relocated to Baltimore and became the Ravens and the New Browns came into existence in 1999. To me this looks like the story of the Bill Belichick Browns which is a good story because it’s about a guy who was getting his first shot as a NFL head coach and something he deserved, but he inherited a bad football team in 1991.

Coach Belichick's first season where the good days of the Browns of the 1980s were gone and they had become a team that you could expect to lose ten plus games every year. And Bill Belichick didn’t get off to a good start in Cleveland. And started with three straight losing seasons from 1991-93 where progress was slow, but where it finally paid off.

In 1994 the Browns becoming winners and a playoff team for the first time in five years. But financial problems in Cleveland with the Browns playing at a mammoth, aging, stadium in Cleveland Municipal Stadium and these issues were real and the Browns simply wouldn’t have been successful in Cleveland playing in that stadium.