Old School Trailers: Coyote Ugly (2000)

Source:The New Democrat

I’m going to be real honest here and take note of that, because it might be a while before you see me being honest again. And I go back to being a lying bastard till the Chicago Cubs win the World Series. I had never heard of Coyote Ugly until I saw this movie, well until I heard this movie was out some time I guess in the spring or summer of 2000. I didn’t know that Coyote Ugly was not only a real bar, but a national corporation with a chain or Coyote Ugly bars all around the country. Including Washington where I live around in Bethesda. Some times it takes a big movie like this for me to discover new things.

And then after the movie I see the show Wild On with Brooke Burke that was on E back in the day do a feature about Coyote about a year or so after the movie came out. TLC did a realty show about Coyote like in the spring of 2004 about a women who wants to become a Coyote dancer. And talent scouts I guess from Coyote show her the ropes. CMT launches a series in 2004, a contest really that gives tryouts for Coyote dancers and other employees with the winners getting jobs with the company. And that show lasts for about five seasons or so. And I still have several of those episodes on DVD.

This one movie completely got me into the world of Coyote Ugly. Not just because of the movie, but also because of all the shows about Coyote that came after. This post is not so much about the movie itself, which is a very good movie. But how one movie got a country interested in the Coyote Ugly bar and company. Their women, their dancers and everything that they are about and how they launch the careers of attracted sexy intelligent talented women. Who just need that one break to show the world what they can do.

Crime Mystery Shows: Wicked Attraction - Blood Brothers

Source:The New Democrat

If you are familiar with the Hillside Stranglers in the Los Angeles area, then the serial murderers of Leonard Lake and his buddy Charles Ng should sound familiar to you. Except Lake and Ng murdered in the San Francisco area, but what these four men have in common is that they are all pretty pathetic assholes really. Who had rough upbringings and were never very successful in life really at anything that they ever tried to do. Except for perhaps murdering, but go back to them being assholes, had it not have been for Charles Ng’s addiction to steal they wouldn’t have been caught at least when they did. Had Ng not have been a shoplifter knocking off convenient stores, they might still be in business today.

Shocking World: Wicked Attractio - The Witch Killers: Michael & Suzan Carson

Source:Discovery ID.

Source:The New Democrat

Of all the serial murderers that I know of and have followed in one form or the other, Michael and Suzan Carson have to be the weirdest. And that includes serial murderers like Jeff Dahmer and Charlie Manson. So you know I think you have to be out there to murder in the first place and then way out in left field to become a serial murderer. Good luck hitting a home run to left field in a ballpark of a serial murderer. But then throw in LSD and other mind-warping drugs and you have two people who simply live on a another planet. Visiting Earth to do their evil acts.

And the other thing that gets me about the Carson’s, that is similar to the Manson Family women is that the Carson’s came from good solid normal loving middle class American families. They were not Charlie Manson in the sense of someone who never really had a real home outside of jail. They weren’t people who grew up to abusive parents, or in awful neighborhoods and dropped out of high school to join the local gang of losers. These people had good upbringings and had the opportunity to be very successful in life.

I’m not sure this is a case of two people who were fairly normal and then one day snapped. Suzan didn’t have many of any friends growing up and perhaps as a young women as well. Michael showed signs of going off the lamb during his first marriage. They were both showing signs of mental instability before they even met. So in this sense at least they were sort of perfect for each other. Two people who didn’t fit in well anywhere, but in a horrible sense were perfect each other. Which meant anyone they didn’t like was in danger of losing their lives.

Greg Clemons: 'Brainwashing and Indoctrination of Our Children- US History'

Source:Greg Clemons- Diedre Clemons who narrated this video.

"Socialist / Progressive take over of schools with US History." 

From Greg Clemons

Unless you are on the Far-Right or you are some type of what I would call an Anarcho-Libertarian, where you don't want government doing anything outside of law enforcement and national security and perhaps not even those things as well and you are prone to considering or believing conspiracy theories, especially as they relate to communism and socialism, unless you are someone like this and if you are someone like this, your part of a pretty small minority, because you are prone to believing bullshit (to be frank conspiracy theories that imply that Communists are running our schools. 

Unless you are part of the John Birch Far-Right, you don't believe all public schools or perhaps even any are designed to teach about the positive aspects of socialism and communism. And you have more of a balanced view of our public education system. That we have some good public schools K-12 ,but a lot more good colleges, but we don't have enough good schools. Being 39th in the world in education should be a pretty good clue there. 

We need to improve our public education system, just because of the fact because what ever we do in education reform are public schools will always be there for good or bad. The overwhelming majority of students will still be getting their education from public schools. 

As much as Libertarians may want to eliminate the public education system all together, which is run by state and local government's, mainly local government's, they are mainly responsible for operating the public schools more than anyone else. 

The States and FEDS role is mainly about some extra funding, regulations to a certain extent, and research which may be the only thing that the U.S. Department of Education does well. Things that they aren't good at and I'll be brief but there's more unfunded mandates and passing on down mountains of red tape and regulations. 

Libertarians will never be able to eliminate the public education system from the Federal level. For one, not possible that would probably be unconstitutional or at least challenged in court. 

Two, that would also violate Libertarian principles of states rights, local control, as well as constitutional rights. 

Libertarians are also not in charge of any government at least not any major government in the country. So my point being if its education reform you are interested in, then public education reform needs to be part of that picture, since the overwhelming majority of students go to public schools today, into the near future and the future going forward. 

So what we need to thinking about in education reform, is how we reform our public schools. And that gets to choice, competition, accountability (good and bad) rewarding good educators and retraining or firing low-performing educators. 

And we also need to set up a system where public schools and low-income communities that have the resources to do a good job. Just like schools in high and middle-income communities.

The Week: Jeff Spross: 'Three Reasons Why Work Requirements For Food Stamps Are a Bad Idea'

Source:The New Democrat   

Here’s a big area where the Democratic Party disagrees. Where the Center-Left liberal New Democrats such as myself, disagrees with the more further left lets say Progressives and our quite frankly Far-Left. Our more social democratic least Democrats in the party. It is in the area of the role of government and more specifically our social insurance system and what should be expected from our citizens from themselves when it comes to managing their own affairs.

The difference being between Liberals who believe in independence, including economic dependence and for people to have the freedom over their own lives. Versus lets say Social Democrats in the party who have a more collectivist approach and don’t see a problem with people having to have long-term public assistance, even if they are able-bodied and mentally able to do that for themselves, if they just had the skills to do so, in order to survive. Even seeing it as a good thing that people have government taking care of them. Instead of people having to do that for themselves.

Bill Clinton, perhaps the most famous New Democrat in America now has a somewhat famous saying and campaign theme which was part of his 1992 presidential campaign, which was public assistance shouldn’t be free. That it should be an investment in people and not simply charity. And you can argue that simply giving people public assistance checks is an investment in them, because they’ll have that money to eat and everything else in order to live. And of course that money will go directly back in the economy right away. But that is not what then Governor Clinton meant.

What Bill Clinton was talking about was investing people’s human capital. Empowering them to be able to get the tools and skills that they need to actually get off of public assistance. Because now they have a good education, which may even include life training and can use those skills to get themselves a good job that pays their own bills and no longer need public assistance and private charity to survive. A much different approach from simply cutting people off simply because they’ve been on public assistance for a long time. Or saying that they don’t have to do anything while on public assistance, other than to use that assistance to pay their bills.

To tell people who are on public assistance, but are low-income workers that they have an option, but not requirement to get education and job training assistance as part of their government assistance and probably a lot of them will take that as well if they want to actually get out of poverty and become economically independent. But you tell them that they have to do nothing while on public assistance other than to stay out of trouble and oh by the way the way they aren’t eligible for education and job training assistance anyway as part of their public assistance, very few of them will ever leave poverty. Because they won’t be able to get themselves the skills to do so.

Work requirements are the incentive that unfortunately a lot of Americans who didn’t finish high school and haven’t shown a lot of responsibility and positive decision-making with their lives, need in order to take control over their own lives. And to build a positive future for themselves and their kids. But they aren’t a magic bullet and with them you also need education and job training assistance and even requirement so people aren’t leaving Welfare and other programs to go work a minimum wage job, multiple minimum wage jobs. You need both of those things working together.

The Dean Martin Show: The World is Coming to an End in Five Minutes

Source:The New Democrat

Hum with my pointer finger at my head, I wonder who was the star of The Dean Martin Show and who The Dean Martin Show was named after? Boy I gotta hand it to the boy genius’ at NBC for coming up with such a cleaver and original name for a show. Aw the hell with it, maybe I’ll find that out by the time I figure out what color is red and what’s the number for 911.

As far as the world coming to an end in five-minutes. Don’t give me so much time to prepare. I mean just think how much time I could waste freaking out, or pointing at my head about what to do. Should I spend the time freaking out, or thinking about what I should do in those five minutes, perhaps spend four minutes coming up with something and hoping I can get it done before I blow up or something. See if I can get one of the last tickets to the Moon or Mars. Perhaps call Star Trek and have them beam me up. All the decisions one would have to make in that amount of time.

Bayard Rustin & James Baldwin: Freedom Fighters & Friends

Source:The New Democrat

James Baldwin and Bayard Rustin both had two strikes against them and really in Bayard’s case three. But I guess he didn’t strike out because the umpire felt charitable or what have you. But they were both Black and of African descent and if that is not bad enough for Caucasian racists, they were both gay as well. Which would be like someone who is an Atheist, Socialist and a Communist and perhaps even supporter of Islāmic Jihad against Americans all in the same package. These two men were considered devils by anyone who had excuse the expression, shit for brains and not smart enough to know better.

But these two men were two of the best freedom fighters that America has ever produced, because they both knew what they wanted and were intelligent. Confronting people who weren’t intelligent and saw African people as animals and devils who should still be slaves. All they wanted was the same freedom as any other American. The right to live their lives and the right not to be discriminated against based on race. To have their constitutional rights enforced as equally as Caucasian-Americans. Nothing more than nothing less and if you look at the U.S. Constitution, that is a lot of what it is about. And a big part of the American dream.

Stereo Oldie: Experiment in Terror (1962)

Source:The New Democrat 

Experiment in Terror is one of the best action/thriller mystery/suspense movies that I’ve ever seen and perhaps is ahead of its time. At least as far as how the bad guy the terrorist in the movie was able to get so much intelligence on his potential victims. How he intimidated them and how he also used them. Ross Martin plays the terrorist in the movie and he’s not someone who blows up banks, airports, houses, what have you. But is someone who has a very simple and basic goal. Rob a bank to collect somewhere around hundred-thousand dollars, but only uses one employee to get him the money.

The terrorist uses Kelly Sherwood played by Lee Remick who is a bank teller at this San Francisco bank. And tells her, “you rob the bank for me and get me the money, or I’ll kill you and your sister”. He has so much information already on Kelly Sherwood and her sister Toby played by Stefanie Powers, before he puts this terrorist act into action. Kelly is young women working at the bank. Toby is still in high school and the terrorist knows all of this and even what high school Toby goes to.

The terrorist Red played by Ross Martin, tells Kelly that if she goes to the police or FBI, that he’ll kill her and her sister. He underestimates her and the amount of intelligence and courage that she has and she calls Red’s bluff, (no pun intended) goes to the FBI anyway behind his back so he doesn’t know about it, but he figures it out anyway, but doesn’t come through on his threat at least right away. So Kelly is playing along with Red and not really giving him anything, while the SF FBI led by John Ripley tracks down the terrorist. This is a great movie and I’ve seen it several times.

Keith Hughes: What is a Libertarian?

Source: Keith Hughes-

Source:The New Democrat

Libertarians, I guess it depends on what you mean by a Libertarian. And if you asked my definition of a Libertarian, it will sound very similar to both my definition of a Conservative, in the classical sense and a Liberal in the classical sense where I am. So I’ll you give you my four examples of a Libertarian including a Liberal Libertarian and if you want to put me in that camp fine. But Gary Johnson would also be in that camp, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 2012, who certainly leans in that direction, but isn’t what I at least would call a Classical Libertarian.

I just gave you two types of Libertarians. The Liberal Libertarian, Gary Johnson. The Classical Libertarian, Ron Paul, I agree with Keith Hughes on that one. The Conservative Libertarian, Rand Paul who is a little to the Right of his father on national security and foreign policy and to his father’s left on economic policy. Senator Paul is more of a Federalist as it relates to social insurance the safety net. As opposed to his father who simply wants to eliminate the public safety net all together. And then there Anarcho Libertarians. People who are essentially anti-government all together. But don’t officially at least support eliminating all government.

So what do all these labels mean? Lets start with the Classical Libertarian, libertarianism in its realist sense and go from there. The Classical Libertarian is not just anti-big government all together where I am as a Classical Liberal lets say. But they are pro-small government and would essentially cut the Federal Government down to the size it was in the 1920s or so. And tell Americans to live their own lives as they see fit, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone with what they are doing. And if they get into any economic trouble and need assistance, go to their friends, family and private charity for assistance.

Now the Libertarian I actually respect and can talk to and learn from and are interested in and if I was in government I could probably work and personal know and like some of these people, are the Conservative Libertarians. Go back to the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s and you’ll find Barry Goldwater leading that camp. Go to whatever this current decade is called now and you’ll see Rand Paul leading this wing on the Right. People who are again anti-big government and believe in both personal and economic freedom, but aren’t looking to eliminate governmental functions they see as useful and constructive. The safety net comes to mind. But more interested in getting those programs out of the Federal Government and down to the states, locals and even privatization.

Now the Liberal Libertarian, Classical Liberal or even real Liberal, I just go by Liberal for myself. But we are in sync with the Conservative Libertarian and Classical Libertarian on freedom of choice and personal freedom issues. Don’t like big government running our economic or personal affairs for us. Don’t like the welfare state or nanny state. But we aren’t so much anti-government and look to put it down, as much as we are anti-big government. We believe in government, but we want it limited to so it works. And when it comes to helping the less-fortunate, we wants those programs to empower people as much if not more than taking care of them in the short-term so they can live in freedom as well.

The Anarcho Libertarian, think Anarchist and not much of a difference. Lew Rockwell, if you are familiar with his politics who on his blog it days pro-market, anti-state. Unless you are an Anarcho Libertarian, you get into a political discussion with them and you may think you are at a Star Trek convention, ( no offense to Trekies ) But when it comes to Libertarians, they go from the center-right where Conservative Libertarians and even Conservatives are, all the way over to people who are essentially anti-government all together. So it depends on what you mean by Libertarian.
Source:Keith Hughes

The Week: Cuba & Uncle Sam: A Brief History

Source:The Week-

Source:The New Democrat

Cuba has never been a home of liberal democracy and liberal values, liberal utopia, or what have you. Similar to Iraq, they’ve always been ruled by one authoritarian regime or another and that includes America. So there’s never been this one grand moment or time in Cuban history that you can point to and say this was a great period for Cuba where their people lived in freedom and flourished. Because they’ve never had freedom and have never flourished as a country.

But given all of that and has much as Fidel Castro and his communist regime screwed up the Cuban economy, (and that might be putting it lightly) Cuba isn’t a hell hole, rat hole if you need a stronger word and I’m sure you can come up with a stronger one than that. Unlike Haiti, one of Cuba’s neighbors, there are some things that Cuba has done and does today very well and they’ve only gotten better and are going to get even better at that. As much as Fidel Castro was a communist dictator, he is a true Socialist, not democratic obviously, but certainly a Socialist, but unfortunately in the Marxist sense.

Cuba has a very good and developed social insurance and social welfare system. They have good schools, their kids get educated, but then have a hard time finding good jobs because of the Cuban state-owned industries. But that is improving thanks to the Communist State opening up the economy and allowing for private business’s, private property and private enterprise in general. And they have good health care and health insurance, especially considering we are still talking about a third-world country.

I think the direction that Cuba is headed into now, is like that of China and Russia. Where you’ll have a private enterprise economy, but with a generous welfare state like that in Scandinavia. And a country that will probably be even further advance when it comes to some personal freedom and civil liberty issues, just not guaranteed by a constitution. But where the country is still ruled by the Communist Party, without any real opposition to it. And where most of the political power is still centralized in Havana. So no to liberal or even social democracy in Cuba for now, but they are still further along than they ever have been.

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Richard Pryor (1977)

Source:The New Democrat

Remember my advice about marriage and divorce, I’ll tell you again anyway. Don’t get married if you don’t want to get divorced. Especially don’t get married rich, because you may be poor or middle class by the time you’re divorced. And if you’re dumb or crazy enough to get married rich, but you don’t want to get divorced, at least be smart and sane enough to get married while you’re sober at the same time. So if you’re going to get married, make sure you know who you’re marrying. Make sure you’re intelligent and sane at the time. But this one might also be as important, make you’re also sober.

As far as censorship, imagine had Richard (I’m not Little Dick Pryor) had made it big ten-years later after he did. Why I say that, because by 1977 cable was basically an infant if that. If you had cable back then, probably only shopaholics and movie junkies had it, like wives of rich men to use as an example. Because back then you were looking at maybe the home shopping channels and movie channels as far as what was on cable. Basically Home Box Office and the Home Shopping Channel. Unemployed people who watch too many morning and afternoon movies. And shopaholics, like wives married to rich men.

But lets say Pryor makes it big in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Now if NBC, ABC, CBS or even PBS back then said, “you know what Richard, your act is too radical and your language is too foul for our Ozzie and Harriet Leave it To Beaver trapped in the 1950s audience. We can’t let you do your routine on our network”. Richard could tell the networks, the hell with you! (Or something much stronger) “I’m taking my act (or something stronger) to HBO or Showtime”. Or what have you. But again the smart entertainers know about censorship. And the great ones don’t need TV to be successful anyway.

Roll Call: David Hawkings: Could Steve Scalise Shepherd a Rewrite of the Voting Rights Act?

Source:The New Democrat.  

Do I think House Republicans especially the House Republican Leadership will see the Steve Scalise situation as an opportunity to reach out to African-Americans and tell them that they care about their issues and are listening to them. And will say “we now support the Voting Rights Act and want to see it extended”. In one word, no because the House GOP especially listens to the Tea Party and their Far-Right that is part of the Tea Party. That favors states rights and they believe that states even have the right deny people the vote even based on race.

If there’s anything done on voting rights in the 114th Congress that is a Republican Congress, the first one since 2005-06, it will happen in the Republican Senate. Because there is bipartisan support for a Voting Rights Act extension. The question is of of course will Senate Leader Mitch McConnell bring it up or not. I really doubt it and don’t believe he even believes in the VRA and already has plenty on his plate as far as what he wants to accomplish in this Congress.

Now in a perfect world, sure why not if you’re a Republican especially in your leadership in
Congress either in the House or Senate, or you have big role on the Senate or House Judiciary Committee’s, why not use the Scalise situation to reach out to African-Americans and say “I support voting rights for all Americans, regardless of race, even at the federal level and support an extension of the VRA”. Especially if you also just happen to be running for president in 2016 and perhaps are not even in Congress right now.

If you’re thinking long-term as a Republican and you’re lets say a big-tent establishment Republican and you even support voting rights ideologically, someone like a Jeb Bush, extending the VRA is a no-brainer. Because you believe its good policy and you know the current situation of your party as it relates to minority Americans, especially African and Latino. But again those aren’t the people who run the GOP in Congress, the big-tenters if you will. It’s still the Tea Party and Far-Right, as well as the growing conservative libertarian wing of the GOP that doesn’t support the VRA.

Oscars: 1977 Oscars - Fay Dunaway Wins Best Actress For Network

Source:The New Democrat

Faye Dunaway plays perhaps the best ever corporate tough as nails, well bitch in Network. She’s shooting for the stars and will step on anyone that she has to do get to the top where she believes she deserves to be playing Diana in Network. And even if that means replacing real news with entertainment or at best news satire. Which is what news has become today anyway, at least on cable and has been that way for about ten-years now. And one of the genius’ of Network is that they saw that coming. That networks and even network news divisions would combine into one entertainment entity on the networks. That instead of news being about what is important and what people actually need to know for their own good, it would become about what is popular and what people want to know in order to feel good about themselves. And Fay Dunaway was great at playing the producer or creator of that new type of entertainment news in Network.

NBC Sports: MLB 1987-GOW-6/06-Los Angeles Dodgers @ Cincinnati Reds: Full Game

Source:The New Democrat   

The 1987 Cincinnati Reds were similar to the Reds of the 1980s and I call them the New York Yankees of the National League as far as a team that looks pretty good going into the season and would look like contenders up until the All Star break or so and then would fade back in the middle of the pack. They did that in 87, 86 and 88 and 81 and 80 to use as examples. And in the 1980s contending in your division wasn’t good enough to make the MLB Playoffs. You won your division or you were going home.   

The Dodgers of the 1980s post 1985 had trouble being good in back-to-back seasons. They won the AL West in 83 and the struggled in 84. Won the NL West in 1985 and then struggled in 86 and 87. Won the MLB World Series in 88 and then had a losing record in 1989. And didn’t get back to the NL Playoffs until 1995. Tommy Lasorda is a Hall of Fame manager as he should be, but in the 1980s he struggled to win in back-to-back seasons, despite having roughly the same that was successful in one year, but then would struggle the next year.

Classic SF Giants: MLB 1987- 8/18 - San Francisco Giants @ New York Mets

Source:Classic SF Giants- New York Mets pitcher Dwight Gooden, pitching against the San Francisco Giants, at She Stadium in New York, in 1987.

Source:The New Democrat 

"1987 08 18 Giants at Mets KTVU" 

From Classic SF Giants 

A great Giants-Mets matchup late in the 1987 MLB season, because both clubs were still deep in the pennant races. The Giants tied for first place in the NL West and the Mets just a few games behind the St. Louis Cardinals in the NL East.

The Mets and Cardinals won four straight NL East divisions titles from 1985-88 and took turns winning those titles. One of the best MLB rivalries in the mid and late 1980s.

The Giants woke up from the dead in 1986 under Roger Craig after perhaps being the worst team in MLB in 1985. Bounced back in 1986 and had a winning season for the first time in a while. So 1987 they wanted to prove that they were back and at the very least contend for the NL West.

The Mets won the MLB World Series in 1986 and obviously wanted to do that again in 1987.

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Don Rickles (1984)

Source:The New Democrat.  

After Don Rickles essentially going off on one of his crazy tantrums for fifteen-minutes or so, the only thing I got from this, well I got a few things, but Rickles is crazy. Someone spiked his apple juice with scotch, perhaps LSD or something. Or perhaps Rickles spiked his own apple juice with LSD. Johnny Carson was obviously a very patient man, I guess as long as the audience was enjoying Rickles.

Ed McMahon is obviously the highest paid yes man of all-time. I would argue overpaid, I mean seriously how hard is it to say yes. I mean you don’t even have to speak English to say it. All right fine, Big Ed said, yes! Yeah, fine now I’m impressed and I bet Big Ed could tie his own shoes, which came from all the experience that he tied Johnny Carson’s shoes. But I still think Big Ed was overpaid. And that Don Rickles represents the fact that we don’t have enough people living in mental hospitals.

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Lauren Bacall (1987)

Source:The New Democrat

I had an excellent motivation for not skipping school as a student. My father would’ve found out about the day that it happened and would’ve kicked my ass for it. Which meant day after day taking one boring class after another and trying to stay awake the whole time, without any coffee or any caffeine inside of the classroom. Well it wasn’t really all that bad. Some classes I was actually wide awake for. It is kind of hard to fall asleep playing basketball in gym, trust me I’ve tried. But similar to Lauren Bacall, I went to school in order to finish it. And get out of it what I needed to be able to move on. Not to have a good time, even though I managed to do that as well.

As far as Hollywood marriages. Classic case of the career move. “Gee, if I marry Joe or Mary, or at least get seriously involved with them, they’ll introduce me to Tom or Sally and I can get that part in that movie I want to be in and future big roles. And my publicity and reputation will shoot up”. There’s a big reason why half of American marriages end in divorce. One word, Hollywood and it’s probably more like 6-7 out of ten marriages out there that end in divorce. I mean they are all entertainers and have all played the role of husband and wife on the big or small screens and have played those roles in real life as well.

Easy for me to say as someone who is not in Hollywood. But my advice would be for people out there to marry people they are truly in love with and are in love with them. And only marry when those things are there and you want to get married at that point. Because once you get married and you’re still young enough to have kids, kids come next. And you’re responsible for them whether you are in love with the father or mother or not. And now your career move has just become a very complicated life move that you have to deal with.