Stand Apart Comedy: Bob Newhart on the Jack Paar Show in 1965

Source:Stand Apart Comedy- Good Job, Bob!

Source:The Daily Review

I'm personally not crazy about flying myself. But not because I'm worried about the plane crashing, but because I'm 6'5 and 220 pounds or so and even in economy plus, I'm generally not that comfortable on an airplane. And besides generally when I fly I'm going from the East Coast to the West Coast which is a six-hour trip going out West. This is going to sound horrible, but not liking flying is a hell of an excuse for not seeing my family out there. Because I can always say that is a long way to fly for just a few days, or even a week and then to fly back. As far as bathrooms, or food on the plane, I think I rather do those things in jail. Not that I want to do those things in jail, but if its a choice between one or the other, well maybe I would lean towards the plane. Because I know I'll getting out of there in hours, instead of years. And I won't be in jail, it will just feel like it.

As far as having more accidents in the bathroom than on a plane. Sure! For people who aren't potty-trained yet. Oh, you mean people slipping on wet floors and that kind of thing. Well maybe they're not bath, or shower-trained yet either. Seriously, how hard is it to keep all of the water to take a bath or a shower in the tub? We're humans, not horses. There's only so much water that a human needs (assuming they shower on a regular basis) in order to bath and shower themselves. And if water gets on the floor anyway, because I don't know you're just coming back from Africa, or perhaps someplace where showers are illegal, or water is not available, or maybe you weigh over three-hundred pounds, just waking up from a coma from watching a Jean-Claude Van-Damme movie marathon, or something and you need a lot of water to bathe yourself, here's a tip. Dry the floor before you get in the shower and use a mat to step on when you get out.

Learn Liberty: Professor Dan Russell: Self-Ownership & The Right to Say No

Source:Learn Liberty-

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Professor Dan Russell on a couple things here. The only people we actually own are ourselves and that property rights extend to ourselves and our bodies. For example, we as adults can have sex with anyone we choose, as long as they are adults and they consent to it. But we don't have a right to rape people and no one has a right to rape us. I'm not pro-choice on practically everything because I'm a big fan of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, pornography, gambling, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, abortion, etc, because I'm a big fan of all of those activities. The opposite is true, I just don't believe that just because I don't personally approve of them that others shouldn't have the same freedom of choice as I have to make those decisions for themselves.

Freedom of choice, is not freedom of force. It just means we have the right to make our own personal choices as long as we aren't hurting any innocent person with what we're doing. And then we are personally responsible for the choices that we make. Now where government can come in is to put out all of the best available information about all of these activities for free people can make the best personal decisions for themselves as possible. And not bail people out when people are personally irresponsible with their own lives and force responsible people to pay for the bad decisions of irresponsible people. Freedom of choice, is not just right for people to say yes when it comes to activities and deciding to do things. It is the right for people to make their own decisions. Yes or no and then they're responsible for their own decisions.

David Von Pein: The Tonight Show- Jim Garrison vs Johnny Carson, January 31st, 1968

Source:David Von Pein- New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in 1967 or 68.

Source:The Daily Review

"New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison discusses the assassination of President Kennedy with Johnny Carson on NBC's "The Tonight Show" on January 31, 1968. Audio only." 

From David Von Pein

I always found it interesting about Jim Garrison and why would a New Orleans District Attorney be investigating the assassination of a U.S. President who was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Which is about a thousand miles or so from New Orleans. And spend ten years of New Orleans taxpayer dollars on this investigation an investigation that was under the jurisdiction of the Dallas PD and the FBI.

And I don't believe Oliver Stone's JFK movie from 1991 which I've seen several times, has ever made that clear. If you want to know why Oliver Stone is such a conspiracy theorist, is because of serious people like Jim Garrison who come up with these incredible theories. Maybe it's just me, but you would think a big city District Attorney like Jim Garrison would have enough crime cases of his own to investigate.

The only conspiracy theory that I believe is worth considering, that any serious person with respect on these issues, someone like Robert Blakey, who was the Chief Counsel of the House Assassinations Committee in the late 1970s that looked into the JFK assassination, is the theory involving organized crime. Especially the Italian Mafia in America in Dallas and Chicago in particular. They clearly wanted President John Kennedy killed and would have had the access and power to pull it off.

And Lee Harvey Oswald, who wasn't interested in his own personal safety and freedom, would have been the perfect assassin for the Italian Mafia who hated President Kennedy. Not saying that the Italian Mafia did have Kennedy assassinated, but they could've done it if they wanted to pull it off. And the Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald connections, I believe give this theory credibility.

I think it's obvious that Lee Oswald was the assassin who killed President Kennedy. It was his gun, he worked at the Dallas Book Depository, he had the means, motive, access, he could pull this off and was a good enough shooter to do it. The only question here is did anyone put him up to it. Was this a one-man operation, or were there others involved. Like members of Chicago or Dallas organized crime.

Jack Kennedy, had plenty of enemies on the Far-Right in Dallas and perhaps Texas as a whole. The Far-Left especially Communists like Lee Oswald, hated him as well. The Italian Mafia hated Kennedy, because his administration was serious about putting them out of business. After the Mafia helped Kennedy get elected president especially in Chicago in 1960. With all of these factors its hard to believe that one little loser could have pulled off this assassination by himself. Which is how these conspiracy theories come about.

Professor Peter Jaworski: 'What Does Liberty Really Mean?'

Source:Learn Liberty- and the Statue of Lady Liberty.

Source:The New Democrat

""Liberty 101: What Does Liberty Really Mean?" by the Institute for Humane Studies. Prof. Peter Jaworski says that libertarians focus on political liberty over other types of liberty. What does he mean by “political liberty”? Why is this the priority?" 

From CNX

From Wikipedia- "Liberty in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism. In politics liberty consists of the political social and political freedoms enjoyed by all citizens."

The first time I've actually seen that on Wikipedia, but that is pretty close to the liberal definition of liberty. The ability for one to have self-determination over them self. To chart their own course in life and make their own decisions about themselves. It means the freedom for people to be themselves short of hurting innocent people with their freedom. And then being held personally responsible for their own decisions for good and bad. 

The liberal definition of liberty covers both economic and social policy. Someone can run their own company essentially anyway they want to, short of hurting their own employees and customers. Again, we're talking about liberty from a liberal, not libertarian vantage point. When it comes to social policy, liberty is the ability for one to make their own decisions over their own personal affairs, short of hurting innocent people intentionally, or otherwise.

Again, we're talking about liberty in a liberal society, a free society, where people have the right to self-govern. But we don't have the right to hurt people unless in self-defense. But liberty is too expensive if it doesn't involve both personal responsibility and rule of law. And without rule of law, liberty becomes anarchism. 

The extreme version of liberalism is not socialism, or Marxism. People who believe socialism and Marxism, are the extreme versions of liberalism, don't understand liberalism. The extreme version liberalism is anarcho-libertarianism and anarchism. Where people can essentially do whatever they want, because there aren't any consequences that come with their decisions. Short of someone getting back at you for robbing them, or assaulting them, or whatever the case. So a Liberal believes in both liberty and rule of law. They go together like meet and potatoes, cheese and bread, whatever combination you want to come up with.

Name the social issue including gambling and prostitution which are also social issues, I'm probably pro-choice on it as a Liberal. Just as long as it comes to rule of law including a regulatory state. Not to run the enterprise or activity, but to protect consumers and employees from predators. And it doesn't involve legalizing predatory behavior. Like murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. 

Liberty, is the ability one to live their own life short of hurting an innocent person with how they live. Not the liberty to hurt innocent people intentionally, or otherwise. 

Conservatives and Libertarians, at least in the classical sense, have a similar definition of liberty as I do. Social Democrats, Socialists, Communists, not such big fans of freedom of choice, even with responsibility. And have more of a collective government-centric idea of liberty. But one of the great things about living in a federalist liberal democracy, is we get to make these decisions for ourselves.

New York Giants Fans: 'Cowboys-Giants Rivalry'

Source:New York Giants Fans- head coach Tom Coughlin.

Source:The Daily Review

"Giants Chronicles explores the history of the Giants-Cowboys rivalry" 

From the New York Giants Fans

This photo was the original photo from this video about the Giants-Cowboys rivalry. But that video is currently available online right now.

Source:NFL Films- New York or New Jersey (depending on your perspective) vs Dallas.

The NFC East division is the best division in the NFL, because every team hates everyone else. Maybe only the AFC North can say that about their division. You got Giants-Eagles, Redskins-Cowboys, Redskins-Giants, Eagles-Cowboys, these are all great rivalries. The Redskins-Eagles rivalry has been very good over the years especially the last thirty years or so. 

The Giants-Cowboys rivalry even though it is a rivalry and both teams respect and get up for each other, might be the last rivalry in the NFC East. Both teams are separated by about 2000 miles. Other than this century both teams haven't been good at the same time for the most part. The Cowboys were great in the 1970s, the Giants perhaps the worst franchise of the 1970s. The Giants were good in the mid and late 1980s as the Cowboys were in decline. The Cowboys were the team of the 1990s, while the Giants were struggling to make the NFC Playoffs, for the most part.

The Giants, might have a bigger rivalry with the Chicago Bears and San Francisco 49ers over the years, if you look at all the great games they've had with both franchises. Especially the 49ers which goes back to 1981 and where they seemed to be playing each other on Monday Night Football every year in the 1980s, or in the playoffs. 

As you see in this video most of the great games that the Giants and Cowboys have played against each other has been in the last 5-10 years or so. So you might be able to say that the Giants-Cowboys rivalry has been great during this period, or is one of the best rivalries in the NFL right now. Similar to the Baltimore Ravens and Pittsburgh Steelers, or the Ravens and Cincinnati Bengals. But historically the Giants main rivals have been the Eagles and Redskins and then after that the 49ers and Bears, as far as the big games that they've played. With the Cowboys, it has been the Redskins and Eagles and then the 49ers as well.

To me at least, great NFL rivalries are historic. They survive through the years with people being able to say: "Remember that great game against them thirty years ago when we beat them for the division? Reminds me of that game last year when they beat us for the division." Just because a rivalry is hot, or sexy, or however you want to phrase it, doesn't make it a great rivalry if no one cares about it 3-5 years from now. Because both teams have moved on, or perhaps are struggling now, or just one team is struggling with other getting the better of their games. 

And yes, since both the Cowboys and Giants have been regular playoff contenders the last ten years or so and generally have both been in the NFC East race, they've played a lot of big games against each other and have done that in prime-time. But that doesn't put it in the same class as the Redskins-Cowboys, Giants-Eagles, Redskins-Giants, who go back forever against each other and have played a lot of great games against each other going back fifty-years. The Cowboys first big rival was the Redskins. Then the Eagles and then the Giants.

NFL Network: NFL 1986- America's Game: 1986 New York Giants

Source:NFL Network- New York Giants LB Lawrence Taylor, (1981-93) also known as LT.

Source:The Daily Review

“Story of the 86 Giants. Film by NFL Network America’s game. Super Bowl 1986 – New York Giants All rights reserved by National Football League. Posted for fans only.”

From NFL Network

"America's Game: 1986 New York Giants" 

Source:Bill Parcells- New York Giants head coach Bill Parcells (1983-90)

From NFL Network

As someone who loves the Redskins and hates the New York Giants and if you’re familiar with that rivalry you know why, I have a lot of respect for the 1986 Giants.

They’re still one of the top 5-10 Super Bowl champions of all-time, but that is not why. They just represent exactly what NFL football should be. “We’re coming after you. Try to stop us.” It wasn’t this made for reality TV, or Hollywood nonsense where everything is perfectly designed like you’re trying to put a Broadway play together. With all sorts of sophisticated offenses and defenses. Actually, just sophisticated offense.

If Roger Goodell had his way, tackling might become illegal in the NFL today. The 86 Giants, represent the opposite of New School football. And they’re one of the best Old School NFL teams of all-time.

The 86 Giants, were a power-run ball-control team, that could basically tell the defense: “here we come, try to stop us.” And if you paid too much attention to their running game, quarterback Phil Simms would go play-action and hit tight end Marc Bavaro down the middle of the field. Or Stacy Robinson, Bobbie Johnson, or Lionel Manuel deep on the outside.

On defense, good luck running the ball against them. Because even though they played a 3-4, blocking nose tackle Jim Burt could be like blocking 2-3 men with one man. And then you got defensive end Leonard Marshall on one side and George Martin on the other. And if somehow you block those three guys, you got some guy named Lawrence Taylor coming off the edge. (Maybe you’re old enough to have heard of him) Carl Banks on the other side. Great against the run and pass. Harry Carson in the middle, again who could play the run, or pass.

The 86 Giants were, a classic Blue-Collar in your face, “try to remove us” football team. That represented Blue-Collar New York and North Jersey as well as the 85 Chicago Bears represented Chicago. They just came at you and dared you to even fight back, let alone try to kick their ass.

The Redskins had opportunities to actually beat them in the 86 NFC Championship and they got a break playing the undersize Denver Broncos, instead of the NFC tough Cleveland Browns. But the 86 Giants were the best team in the NFL on both sides of the ball that whole year. And played their best football in Super Bowl after dominating the NFC Playoffs. And are a team that unfortunately wouldn’t have sold too well with today’s NFL fans. That only seem to be interested in offense and pretty boys. But that team would still dominate today and are still the best Giants Super Bowl team of all-time.

A&E Biography: Barbara Eden

Source:Barbara Eden- Hollywood Baby Jeannie Barbara Eden. 

Source:The Daily Review

I swear that Barbara Eden, Kim Novak, Raquel Welch and Jaclyn Smith, must all have the same workout plan and use the same facial cream, or something. I mean you look at Barbara when she was 50, 60, 70 and now which practically impossible for me to believe and harder to believe that she turned 60 and 70 and now 80 years old, she looks the same and not day older in any of those photos. Its as if the Barbie doll was invented for her. I Dream of Jeannie, is of course what Barbara Eden is known for, but she's more than that. She's an ageless goddess and perhaps the cutest entertainer from her generation who even at 81 still comes off as a baby-faced adorable Hollywood Goddess. An 81 year old women who is still gorgeous and baby-faced adorable.

When Barbara was in her early and mid thirties in the 1960s on I Dream of Jeannie, she had a tendency to come as a kid and even little girl. Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield, had similar issues when they were working. But she made that work for her, because she's so adorably funny as well and sexy and gorgeous. I think the Tony Nelson character on that show must at times must of felt that Jeannie was like having a daughter and big kid in the house even though Larry Hagman and Barbara Eden are only three years apart in real-life. On the show Jeannie is a couple thousand years older than U.S. Air Force Major Tony Nelson. But of course you wouldn't know that by looking at Larry Hagman and Barbara Eden on that show. Because in years she could probably pass as Hagman's daughter.

Despite the realness and realism of I Dream of Jeannie, with a Persian Jeannie with blonde hair and light complexion, who is a couple thousand years old and speaks perfect English and lives in bottle, (ha ha) we're not talking about a great show. The show is simply not believable and looks like a sci-fi comedy, or Star Trek comes to Planet Earth. But Jeannie, because she was freaking adorable and funny and was such an expert at getting into trouble and so overprotective of her Master Major Tony Nelson and with how funny Larry Hagman and Bill Daily were on that show, it worked. And because of the success of that show it probably meant that Barbara Eden (or Baby Barbie as I like to call her) would never have to worry about working again. And its a show that has been in syndication for what what 45-50 years now. And she's made a great career for herself.

Reason Magazine: Ronald Bailey- The Democrats Denmark Fetish

Source:Reason Magazine- Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders & Progressive Hillary Clinton.

Source:The New Democrat

I believe the best argument that Conservatives have against why America shouldn't become a social democracy like Denmark, or anywhere in Scandinavia, or a social democracy in general, is that those countries all have very small populations and all produce a lot of their own energy. And in Norway and Sweden's case they are big in size, small in population and produce a lot of energy. They also all speak English very well, but perhaps that has nothing to do with this. And this is coming from a Liberal who doesn't believe in social democracy, but the liberal democracy federal republic that we have in America instead. Based on constitutional individual rights and having a country where everyone has a quality opportunity to succeed on their own and create their own freedom for themselves.

When you're a country with a small population, but you have a good deal of land and you're not just energy independent, but produce a lot of energy, you can afford to be very socialist. You have more money you have to play with and can afford more mistakes. You're private sector with the high taxes and regulations doesn't have to be as efficient, because you have all of that money coming in from your energy sector. A country like America with roughly three-hundred and twenty-million people that is still importing oil and gas, that is still somewhat underdeveloped with its infrastructure, that has a high level of poverty, there's a limit to what we can expect government to do for us especially if the people aren't willing to do everything for themselves as possible.

America doesn't need to be more like Denmark, but we need to be more like America. We need to expand economic and personal freedom at home. Especially for Americans who don't have those things like the fifty-million Americans or so that live in poverty and the millions of Americans who live just above poverty. Not make millions of Americans more dependent on government at any level to take care of them. But instead empower these Americans to take care of themselves. Which would expand the American economy, produce millions of Americans who pay income and payroll taxes, which would lower our debt and deficits and give the country a lot more money to help the people who truly need and aren't able to take care of themselves.

Saturday Night Live: Democratic Debate Cold Open

Source:Saturday Night Live- Senator Bernie Sanders ( played by Larry David ) and Hillary Clinton ( played by Kate McKinnon )

Source:The Daily Review

Larry David, of course was funny, but his performance up there looked more like he was impersonating himself, or Jerry Seinfeld, than Senator Bernie Sanders. The whole "what's the deal with this or that", classic Seinfeld, but not Bernie. But David did have Bernie's physical mannerism's down and he has the right hairline and physical stature and about the right age to play Bernie Sanders. The Democratic Socialist Senator from the Socialist Republic of Vermont. Not a Marylander making fun of Vermont, but that is what Vermonters actually call their state. They pay their taxes with huge smiles on their faces that could cure depression in Finland and always complain about their taxes being too low and government being too small.

Too bad Bernie Sanders first name is not David. Because then he could say its David versus Goliath in this presidential campaign. He being David vs the Goliath's being the billionaires in the country. If the Sanders Campaign ever goes South for the winter, (ha ha) Bernie might want to consider changing is first name from Bernie to David. And change their campaign theme to, "David vs The Goliath's." It is obvious why Republicans are hammering Hillary Clinton so much with toy hammers and paper nails, because they know they probably can't beat her right now. Unless the Christian-Right and Tea Party allows for them to nominate someone who hasn't spent time in a mental institution, as a patient and nominates someone real who can appeal to people outside of the Far-Right and even Center-Right of the country. Who knows who they are. Meaning someone other than Michelle Bachmann, or Mitt Romney. Meaning John Kasich, or Marco Rubio.

So the GOP wants Bernie to do well. But how far would they take that? I mean do they really want to be seen supporting someone who is not only a Democratic Socialist, but a self-described Democratic Socialist? I mean how far would they go for that? Would they run national campaigns calling for government-run health care and health insurance? Government-run and financed college financing? Would they say the rich are under taxed? The Federal Government is too small? The states and localities have too much power? How far would they go to support a Democratic Socialist to try to defeat the Center-Left Democrat who has the best shot of being the next President of the United States. So of course the GOP wants Bernie Sanders to look good in these debates and Hillary to look bad. But how much do they want that.
Source:Saturday Night Live

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Best Moments On Politics

Source: Johnny Carson- Some Guy Named Jim & President Ronald Reagan.

Source:The Daily Review

I haven't seen them all, but I believe my favorite Johnny Carson political skit is the politician under the lie detector. Because that plays so well with today's American politics and I'm sure it played very well back in 1982 politics when that skit was done. Just imagine how many politicians would disqualify themselves from running for office, or would have to resign from office if they were always under a lie detector every time they spoke in public.

Imagine if politicians had to answer questions in public about their records under a lie detector test and here some examples of what that could be like.

Question- "Senator Jones, why did you vote against the clean energy bill?" Answer-"Because Big Oil told me if I did, they wouldn't bankroll my reelection campaign." Question- "Representative Smith, why did you vote against the middle class tax cuts?" Answer-"Because I believe middle class Americans are too stupid to spend their own money wisely. Besides its not the people's money anyway, but the government's money."

American politicians have a bad habit of promising their constituents things from government that they don't want to ask the people to pay for. Because they know raising revenue, (another way of saying increasing taxes) or moving funds around, (another way of saying cutting popular programs) could cost them politically. So what they say is they'll give people free roads, or education vouchers, free health care, to use as examples instead. The theory being if that government does it then the service is free. But anyone familiar with American politics, Milton Friedman and pays taxes, knows there's no such thing as a free lunch. At least when it comes to government.

Imagine if American politicians were asked to explain how they would pay for their new popular government programs and were under a lie detector and didn't know that.

Question- "Senator Wilson, how do you plan to pay for your national childcare program? Well, with the debt and deficit being as high as it is, we're going to have to increase payroll taxes out of people's paychecks, or ask wealthy people to retire later, or a combination of both." Unless Senator Wilson represents Massachusetts, or Vermont, two states that fills out their taxes with smiles on their faces and actually celebrates National Tax Day and sees it as a holiday, he can probably forget about reelection. Because his opponent would call him a tax and spender. Who thinks Americans are under taxed and that government should take more of their hard-earned money from them.

Lying politicians is as common in America as snow is as common in Canada and socialism is as common in Sweden. If a politician is asked at a party by someone who doesn't know them and has never seen them before, what they do for a living? And the politician tells them I'm a state senator, or U.S. Representative, or something like that, the politician might get a drink thrown in their face. And if the politician happens to be President or Vice President of the United States, the drink thrower would probably get tackled to the ground by a Secret Service agent. And be arrested for being so stupid as to not know who the President and Vice President of the United States are. Well, at least not knowing who the President is. So a full-time lie detector at least for Congress, would throw out a lot of the trash that currently stinks up the House and Senate, because Members of Congress would no longer get away with lying.
Source:Johnny Carson

Free Association: Sheldon Richman- 'The Anti-Politician Politician'

Source:The New Democrat- Ain't that the truth.

Source:The New Democrat

"The good news about the presidential election season is that so many voters seem disgusted with career politicians. The bad news is that these voters are naively opting for "outsiders" who in reality are just politicians in another form. They are anti-politician politicians."

From Sheldon Richman

"Lying Politicians And Words. George Carlin comments."

From George Carlin

Source:George Carlin- Speaking at The National Press Club, n 2008.

"The anti-politician politician." Not my line, but I guess it would be someone who is a politician, but doesn't like status-quo politics. Someone who speaks freely, doesn't come off as being bought and sounds like they're running for office for the coal industry, or the environmental lobby. Whose not afraid to look at independent facts and research and just doesn't go by the party-line.

Someone who of course has a lot of things in common with their party, but goes against them when they're clearly wrong. In other words someone whose last name is not Clinton, or Bush. Not sure that politician exists at least who is running for president in one of the major political parties. Senator Bernie Sanders, might be the closest, but he's been in Congress for over twenty-four years now and is a career politician.

Actually, all five Democratic presidential candidates have served in at least one chamber of Congress. Martin O"Malley, who was a big city mayor in Baltimore and Governor of Maryland, would be the exception to that. Bernie Sanders, sixteen years in the House and now almost nine in the Senate.

You go over to the Republican Party and you'll find, yes Donald Trump. But he wants to be President of the United States, as much as Pope Francis wants be an Atheist. His campaign is clearly about him and he sees a faction of the Republican Party the old Silent Majority that feels left out in American politics and the country as a whole. And he is speaking their language right now. And will continue to speak their language until he finds a better group of people to pander to.

I guess you could call Carly Fiorina an anti-politician politician, but not from a lack of trying. But because she hasn't won an election yet.

Ben Carson, brain surgeon and by a lot of counts at least as it has to do with medicine and education he seems pretty bright. But at least to me it doesn't sound like much more than a right-wing hipster (if there is such a thing) who speaks in catch phrases. Who uses a lot of what could be called grand rhetoric, but that doesn't have much meat in the language. Who uses catch phrases to try to bring people to his side on right-wing social issue positions. Apparently unaware that hipsters tend to be pretty young and liberal-libertarian on most social issues.

Americans might say they want an anti-politician politician. But it's only when politicians make their positions clear and speak from the heart which is when they lose.

I at least and George Carlin would be with me on this, see Americans voters as much if not a bigger problem than politicians themselves. You only get to being a career politician by getting elected and reelected over and over. And unfortunately the way politicians get reelected over and over is telling voters what they want to hear and then doing something else when they get reelected. And making it look like they wanted to do the things they ran on, but that wasn't possible, so they had to settle. When the fact was they had no plans to act on the positions that they originally supported. With voters at home actually buying that like they buy a bottle of water or something and not putting much thought into what they were sold.

If Americans want better politicians, then they have to vote for better more candid people. And not try to fire them simply based on one vote or policy, even if those positions are incredibly unpopular. Because a lot of times doing the right thing in American government is unpopular at least at the time. President Harry Truman, knew this by heart.

If politicians feel they can do the right thing and take tough stances on key issues without the fear of losing their job and having to work for a living, they'll do that. Because who wants to be an accountant, or teach for a living, or some other really hard job where the money isn't great, when they can make 150,000 dollars a year, with three months or more of paid vacation every year. Where you get a week off for holidays.

Voters, need to be smart and do their homework and know who they're voting for and let that person do their job. That is the only way you get better politicians and better government.

Lifetime: Lynda Carter- 2000 Intimate Portrait

Source:Lifetime Network- The Wonder Woman Lynda Carter.

Source:The Daily Review 

"A biography on Lynda Carter. Narrated by Mary Hart." 

From Lifetime Network

I'm sure Lynda Carter is more than Wonder Woman and has more credits to her life than that. I think the problem that she and its not a weakness on her part, but similar to Catherine Bach as Daisy Duke on The Dukes of Hazzard, she played Wonder Woman so well and doesn't have another role that comes close to the popularity of Wonder Woman, that she's not that well-known for anything else. Except for perhaps her most die hard fans. Which is a shame, because she might be the best looking and sexiest women on TV from the 1970s. A gloomy decade in a lot of ways, but her and that show gave millions of Americans a lot to be happy about and look forward to for about five years. In the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Lynda Carter, is one of the top Hollywood Goddess's of all-time. I'm not sure a better looking women has ever been on TV, to be frank about this. A gorgeous and yet baby-faced adorable brunette, 5'9, 130 pounds or so, great body. Built like a great tennis player. You can see why the creators of Wonder Woman wanted her so much and wanted her in that outfit so much. She truly looked like a goddess  and played one on TV as well. I don't know of another women at least from that era, who cold have played that role better, or as well. When you're talking about her physical presence and the fact that she's a hell of an actress as well. She made a guest appearance on the hit police detective show Starsky and Hutch in like 1975 or 76 , before Wonder Woman and you could see then that she was going to be a star.

I'm surprised that Wonder Woman didn't lead to other great roles for her on TV and in the movies. I could easily have seen her on a hit cop show in the 1980s where she plays a detective or detective sergeant, kicking ass and saving the day. (So to speak) I think she would have been great in roles like that on TV, or doing action/comedy movies like that. And perhaps even having another hit show. Similar to Angie Dickinson with Police Woman in the mid and late 1970s. But she has made a very good career for herself doing other movies, as well as putting together a pretty successful singing career. But even being typecast as this Wonder Goddess from Paradise Island, (of all places) I believe even with that she should have had other opportunities like that in the 1980s and 1990s. And had more great credits on her resume. 

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: 'Ronald Reagan's Funny Return to California: January 4, 1989'

Source:The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- talking about President Ronald Reagan and Vice President Dan Quayle in 1989.

Source:The Daily Review

"Johnny Carson discusses Ronald Reagan leaving the White House and the funny things that happen when he moves back to California...

From The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson 

I think Johnny's best line here was about President Reagan reaching a deal with Random House to write his presidential memoirs and getting a big advance for it, had to do with President Reagan's bad memory. 

If you're familiar with Ron Reagan's second presidential term and I am even though I was a kid for his entire presidency and had just started junior high when he left office, you know that President Reagan claimed to not remember a lot of key parts of his second term. 

Iran Contra, being a perfect example of President Reagan's so-called memory lapses, that and claiming if he didn't know if he had agreed to the arms for hostages deal in 1985-86. And his own Vice President (his first officer in his administration) a man who was a very active and responsible VP who was in on everything that the President did: George H.W. Bush, claiming to know nothing about Iran Contra. Even though he was at all the meetings.

Johnny's joke being that: "Funny how a big advance from Random House to write your memoirs can jumpstart your memory." In this case the memory about Iran Contra and a lot of the key moments of his second term as president. 

There are only a few ways this could have gone down. President Reagan, came down with Alzheimer's as President of the United States and that is why he forgot so much about his presidency even as President. And if you believe that I have a ski resort in Los Angeles where they get the best snow that I would like to sell you. 

President Reagan, was too much of a delegator and not on top of things that were going on at his National Security Council. Which is very believable. Or of course he knew what was going on the whole time and didn't want Congress to know about arms being traded for hostages in Iran. Because he didn't want to get into trouble for  Which is also very believable.

A good line Johnny had about Vice President Elect Dan Quayle, who of course was President George H.W. Bush's Vice President. Dan Quayle, was a young U.S. Senator who had only been in Congress for less than twelve years (between both the House and Senate) by the time Vice President Bush selected him in 1988 and didn't have much a resume before Congress and was 41 at the time, was viewed at the very least by the national media to be not ready and immature and not real bright. 

Dan Quayle got a bad wrap as being known as an idiot and perhaps immature, but he didn't do much as Vice President to show anyone outside of him that he was up for the second ranking position in the U.S. Government. And Johnny making the crack that Ron Reagan will be having dinner with talk show Merv Griffin. While he will be having finger food at Jack in The Box. (A California fast food joint)

NFL Films: NFL 1985- The Road to Super Bowl 20

Source:NFL Films- Da Bears Fan Bill Murray.

Source:The Daily Review

NFL 1985, of course was dominated by the Chicago Bears. Going on to an 18-1 record and winning their first Super Bowl, arguably the most dominant Super Bowl champion of all-time. I also remember this season very well as a Redskins fan, because we lost quarterback Joe Theisman to a career ending leg injury on Monday Night Football against are great rival New York Giants. The Redskins, were essentially a 500 team before they played the Giants that night and got down in that game. But backup quarterback Jay Schroeder came in brought the Redskins back in that game. And the Redskins got hot under Schroeder and barely missed the NFC Playoffs that season. But the 1985 NFL season had so much more than that.

The San Francisco 49ers, fell back from their Super Bowl season in 84 and almost missed the NFC Playoffs in 85 and lost the NFC West to their arch-rival Anaheim Rams (as I call them). The Rams, weren't really anything special. Other than having a great power running game led by Eric Dickerson the premier runner in the NFL at this point. They had one of the top defenses in the NFL in 85 and if they could get anything out of Dieter Brock in the passing game, they were good enough to beat anyone. The Miami Dolphins, didn't get back to the Super Bowl, but they did get back to the AFC Final where they lost to the New England Patriots. The Patriots, were never even a Super Bowl contender pre-85 and yet they got to the Super Bowl in 85 as a wildcard team. With their power running game, explosive passing game and solid defense.

I think if you can get past the Bears in 85, a lot of that season I believe is about would could have been. The Raiders going out in the divisional round even though they still had the best all around team at least in the AFC in 85. Same thing could be said about them in 84 where they failed to defend their Super Bowl Championship and didn't even get back to the AFC Final. And the Miami Dolphins failing to improve their very soft defense and not adding a top caliber running back and solid running game for their great quarterback Dan Marino and those great receivers. Which I believe is how the Patriots sort of slipped through and beat both the Raiders and defending AFC champion Dolphins to get to Super Bowl 20. You also had good young teams like the New York Giants, New York Jets, Cleveland Browns, all looking to become Super Bowl contenders again in 85.

But of course you can't talk about 1985 at least about the NFL and even the whole year in general, without talking about the Chicago Bears. Where they finally not just had a team good enough to go with their great running back Walter Payton, but a defense that might have been as great defending as Walter was running the ball, receiving and blocking. The 85 Bears only needed about fifteen points a game to win every week, because they only gave up fourteen points a game. But they scored 28 points a game. They were about as good as anyone has ever been in the NFL on both sides of the ball when Jim McMahon was their quarterback. And you put them up against a blue-collar nothing special but solid football team like the New England Patriots, who believed they only had to stop one player in Walter Payton to beat them and you can see how the Bears beat Patriots 46-10 in Super Bowl 20. 85 was a great NFL season, but it could have been much better in the AFC.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie & Charles C.W. Cooke: The Conservatarian Manifesto

Source:Reason Magazine- talking to author Charles W. Cooke.

Source:The New Democrat

You get the Christian-Right and the Neoconservatives out of the picture and Conservatives and Libertarians could come together and you would have a very powerful and popular Republican Party. Because it would be a true Center-Right party without a Far-Right fringe in it. That believes in fiscal conservatism, economic freedom, a strong national defense that doesn't try to police the world at the least with America trying to do everything ourselves. And at the very least a federalist policy on social issues. "That this is not the priority for the Federal Government. And the states should decide issues like abortion, marriage, gambling, prostitution, marijuana, to use as examples." I would still disagree with a conservative libertarian Republican Party like this, but at least I could respect them and discuss issues with them and even find things that I agree with them on.

I don't think Libertarians will ever defend Social Security and Medicare to use as examples, but I could seem them coming to a place where they say that, "these programs are here to stay whether we like that or not. And as Conservatives have gone federalist on the social issues, were' going to go federalist on the safety net and turn them over to the states to run." Along with being in favor of a strong national defense, just as long as its as strong as it needs to be and doesn't try to police the world. That you fight crime and terrorism, but we respect civil liberties at the same time. And you already see this with Conservative Libertarians like Senator Rand Paul who doesn't want to eliminate the safety net in America, but would prefer to have these programs run at the state level instead. I believe these are ways you could bridge Conservatives and Libertarians and bring them together.

I don't expect on seeing this anytime soon. I think either the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives would have to die off at first, or the Republican Party would have to lose real big real soon. Because they still can't appeal to young Americans and Latinos and lose Congress again with another Democratic president. And they finally get it that they need to bring in new voters. And bring in the Libertarians and again find that bridge where they can both stand on and work together. Which is essentially ditching the social issues, or going federalist on them, and concentrate on the issues where Conservatives and Libertarians agree on. Which has to do with economic policy and the size of the Federal Government and having a strong defense. If that happens, the Republican Party could again become a national party and compete with Democrats everywhere.

Sargon of Akkad: Hipster Racists

Source:Sargon of Akkad-

Source:The Daily Review

When did race and color blindness become "like so not awesome and old school", or whatever with the New-Left in America? I mean how can someone call them self an admirer of Dr. Martin Luther King when they don't get his basic messages of non-violence and color blindness. And lets be clear about what color blindness is and what I'm talking about here is race blindness. Only blind people don't see race and color. So thats not what this is about. What I'm talking about is not judging people based on their complexion and race. I don't think Joe is better than John, or anyone else, because I like his complexion and race, or that we share those things. Their race and color has nothing to do with how I feel about Joe, or John, Mary, Sally, whoever the hell it may be.

"People of color", there's a great hipster term that I hate. As opposed to people who don't have color? Well if that was true how would you describe people of olive complexion? Which includes Mediterranean-Europeans, Southern Slavs, Jews, Arabs and other people. They obviously have color and so do people of Anglo and Nordic descent and Germanic descent. We all have color, just not as much color as other people of color like Africans and South Asians to use as examples. And again it goes back to color blindness which is another way of saying not judging people by color, race, or ethnicity. Hipsters don't have a problem with judging people by color and race. Just as long as they aren't Caucasian. Because in their little Pluto size world of the hipster New-Left there's no such thing as racism against Caucasians.

I guess what is called hipster racism and I call it ignorance, because I'm not ready to label all leftist hipsters as racist and I imagine most of them aren't, but hipster ignorance is another example of one things. How tragic the death of Dr. Martin Luther King's was who was the ultimate leader when it came to racial tolerance and equality where he truly wanted an America where Americans weren't judged by race and color. And had the New-Left bothered to study MLK instead of, gee I don't know, Karl Marx, or Che Guevara, well for one, the New-Left in America wouldn't be the New-Left. Because they wouldn't be so far out on a marijuana trip ideologically. But they would be a lot smarter and not making people on Left in general look like bigots. But good tolerant people who believe in opportunity and freedom for all. Where we aren't judged by race and color.

The Book Archive: Objectivism, Capitalism & Philosophy: James McConnell's Interview of Ayn Rand (1961)

Source:The Book Archive.

Source:The New Democrat 

One thing I would give Ayn Rand credit for is her consistency. She believed the same things when she became well-known in the 1940s or so all the way up until she died. We agree when it comes to individual freedom that people should have the power to live their own lives and not be interfered with government as long as they aren't hurting any innocent person. This is something that Liberals have in common with Libertarians and Objectivists. But I guess the reason why objectivism has never caught on anywhere in the world and why libertarianism has just become  a major movement in America and Canada in the last ten years or so is because even though a lot of people tend to believe in both personal economic freedom now. We also tend at least in America believe in a public safety net for people who truly need it.

Canada and Europe, are a bit different where they don't believe that individuals should be left to take care of themselves and go further than just a social insurance system, which is what a safety net is. And have welfare states there to meet the basic needs of the people. Mixed in with private enterprise to fund those social programs and a good deal of personal freedom as well. As least for a social democracy. I like to call Americans Classical Liberals, or Social Liberals at least in the sense that we go further when it comes to both personal and economic freedom than Social Democrats. But one thing that separates us from Libertarians is that again we want a safety net for people who truly need it. Not a welfare state to manage people's economic affairs for them. But social insurance for people who truly hit hard times.

Sheldon Richman: "Planned Parenthood, Social Peace, And the Libertarian Approach'

Source:Planned Parenthood.

Source:The New Democrat

This is going to sound strange coming from a Liberal, but I’m going to make a fiscally conservative, perhaps even classically liberal case for publicly funding Planned Parenthood. They serve low-income mothers and women who otherwise would have a very difficult time getting birth control and other women’s health care. Do people who call themselves Conservatives really want low-income women having more kids while they’re still collecting public assistance? Birth control is pro-life, because it prevents future Americans from having to live in poverty. Living with a single mother without the education and resources to raise their kids properly. Planned Parenthood is pro-life, because it provides millions of Americans with health care that they probably wouldn’t be able to get.

Tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood means the Federal Government doesn’t have to create some new Federal agency to provide the health care to millions of American women who probably couldn’t get it anywhere else. It means a smaller Federal Government, fewer Federal workers, less Federal tax dollars being spent on these services, because they’re not being provided by the Federal Government instead. We’re not talking about taxpayer funding of abortions which are illegal anyway and I support that except as Sheldon Richman put it under extreme circumstances. Like going through the pregnancy would kill the mother. What we’re talking about is health care not including abortions for millions of American women who probably couldn’t get it otherwise.

I know the libertarian argument about this is not government’s business and that they should butt out of what goes on in the private sector. But tell me where does that system exist in the world so I could look at that and see how it works. If you don’t have government serving people and seeing to it that people who might not be able to get by without that assistance gets help that they need, then what is government for. What’s the point of having a public sector at all? Government is supposed to serve the people. Not direct them, but to see to it that we all have a good shot at making it in life on our own. And preventing unwanted pregnancies and women from having to raise their kids in poverty, is part of that public service.