CBS Sports: NBA 1984- ECSF Game 1- New York Knicks @ Boston Celtics: Highlights

Source:CBS Sports- the New York Knicks and Boston Celtics, from 1984.

Source:The Daily Press

"Opening game of the legendary 1984 ECSF series between Boston Celtics and New York Knicks. Game 1 was all about the best frontline in basketball history; Bird, McHale and Parish dominated in the first encounter of 7-game war.

Larry Bird: 23 points, 12 assists (amazing passes by prime Bird), 9 rebounds, 10/16 FG.

Kevin McHale: 25 points, 11/14 FG.

Robert Parish: 19 points, 12 rebounds, 9/16 FG.

Celtics won this one 110:92" 

From Larry Legend

The Celtics-Knicks, a rivalry with a great history. This was a classic series in one of the best rivalries and two of the best franchises in the NBA, the New York Knicks and Boston Celtics, where you have four Hall of Famers in it in Bernard King for the Knicks and Larry Bid, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish. Dennis Johnson for the Celtics, should also be in the Hall of Fame, but thats a different story. 

The Celtics actually had four Hall of Famers if you include their head coach K.C. Jones. And that is really the difference in this series. The Knicks were so dependent on one player in Bernard King, whereas the Celtics had several great players and great role players. People like Cedric Maxwell, Danny Ainge, Scott Wedman.

The Knicks, similar to the Atlanta Hawks and Chicago Bulls of the mid and late 1980s, were very dependent on one great scorer to lead the way. And when that one player was having a good game that would free up scoring opportunities for other players. The Hawks, had Dominique Wilkins and the Bulls of course had Michael Jordan. But neither team had another great scorer they could go to when their best player had an off game. 

All great scorers in the NBA have off games, but if they’re playing on very good teams, those teams have other scorers and generally multiple scorers that can pick up the slack when their best scorer has that off game. With the Knicks, it really was Bernard King. And sometimes Bill Cartwright and Ray Williams. But they needed King at his best for most games.

I believe that was the main difference in this series. The great team in the Celtics, vs the great player in Bernard King. If King has one of those great games and scored in the high thirties and forties, the Knicks could play with the Celtics, if they played good defense. 

But the Celtics had Larry Bird who by himself was about as great of a scorer as the NBA has ever seen. The reason why he didn’t score as much as the other great scorers was because he didn’t have to. Teams would do a lot to stop him and Legend was such a great passer and playmaker and would free up his teammates for scores. As well as a great rebounder and team defender. He didn’t have to have a great scoring night to beat the Knicks. Because he had a lot of help and did so many other things for the Celtics.

History Channel: The Manson Family Murders

Source:Lana Hodges- Welcome to the world of Helter Skelter?

Source:The Daily Press

"The first victims fell on August 9, 1969, at the home Roman Polanski had rented located at 10050 Cielo Drive in Benedict Canyon, an area just north of Beverly Hills."

From Lana Hodges

Source:FRS FreeState- Manson Family chief prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi.

Charles Manson had the perfect group to do his evil deeds, )so to speak). Because his group was similar to him in the sense that they didn’t seem to fit in very well in mainstream society. Even though Manson’s soldiers all came from solid middle class backgrounds and could’ve all ended going to college before they went to prison for their murders. But instead ended up with Charlie Manson, because they felt for some reason that their families no longer wanted them.

Charlie, had just gotten out of prison for the last time, in 1967-68 and ends up in the San Francisco area. And meets up with these very young women and Tex Watson, in their late teens. And sees that they are lost and offers them his love and takes them in. And they embraced him and the Manson Crime Family is formed as a result.

Bob Parker: ABC News 45-85- Post-World War II

Source:Bob Parker - ABC News anchor Ted Koppel.

Source:The Daily Press

“45/85 Part 1 an ABC News television documentary. It aired on September 18, 1985. The three-hour program combined archive film and television footage with new interviews to document post-World War II history, focusing especially on the Cold War. Hosted by Ted Koppel and Peter Jennings. End of World War II, Levittown.”

From Bob Parker

It would be another thirty-years until I was born when World War II was officially over in 1945. So it’s not like I can talk about post-World War II America with any personal experience. I’m going off of what I’ve learned about it from books, publications and documentaries. But this was a time when America came back and came back stronger than it ever was, at least to this point. The Great Depression was finally over and America was moving again. Emerging as the economic, diplomatic and military power of the world. Russia was obviously a major competitor to us from both a military and diplomatic perspective. But America was the power because of what we stood for.

America transitions from a depressing time of economic depression and war, to a period of peace at least abroad, but not at home. To where we were the military and economic power of the world. And where we could influence any part of the world that wanted what we already had. Peace, freedom an independent and developed economy. We rebuild Europe after Europe destroyed themselves. We rebuilt Japan after they attacked us and we practically destroyed them to end that war with them. America had it all from an economic and military perspective and we’re prepared to use it to further our interests around the world. When Harry Truman became President of the United States in 1945, he really was inheriting a powerful great giant of a country. That had never been stronger.

America was not just moving again, but moving to not just be as strong as we can at home, but abroad as well. Neoconservatives I think love this time, because America was fighting to expand democracy and freedom around the world. Not just in Europe, but in the Orient in Japan and the later Korea. America perhaps overestimating their strengths and power and underestimating China’s and Communist Korea by trying to unite all of Korea under a democratic system. And as a result we left Korea deadlocked between a communist North and a democratic South in the 1950s. But South Korea thanks to America, is one of the strongest countries in the world today as well. This was an incredible time when America almost seemed invincible.

The Onion: Senator Ted Cruz: ‘Fills Few Hours of Marathon Speech With Rousing Pro-ObamaCare Argument’

Source:The Onion- In a marathon Senate floor speech Senator Ted Cruz (Republican, Texas) finally ran out of Tea Party propaganda and decided to embrace ObamaCare. If he had 5 more minutes, he would've endorsed President Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) for a third term. But every man has to eat and even use the bathroom, go to sleep before they can crash on the Senate floor from exhaustion, etc. Not necessarily from The Onion. LOL

Source:The Daily Press

“The world’s insect leaders meet at the G20,000,000,000 Summit, a bullied 8th grader incorrectly thought classmates would leave him alone during a field trip to the 9/11 memorial, and a man experiencing his first real moment of peace in years is resuscitated. It’s the week of September 27, 2013. More from The Onion." 

From The Onion

Only The Onion would report that Ted Cruz spoke in favor of so-called ObamaCare. Otherwise Senator Cruz could be both drunk and high and awake for seventy-two hours straight at the Guantanamo Bay Prison and even forced to take truth serum and still find away to be against ObamaCare.

Actually, maybe Senator Cruz’s speech happened at Guantanamo Bay Prison on one of his visit’s there after visiting his relatives in Cuba. And decided to stay back and give his big speech there, instead of flying back to Congress to speak on the Senate floor.

Or maybe Senator Cruz just ran out of things to say. That even phone books have a limited amount of pages that you can go through and read. And he was starting to fall asleep reading the phonebook, or got tired of listening to the presiding officer snore in their chair.

Or perhaps the Senator just lost his train of thought. But actually he doesn’t much have much of a train of thought to begin with, because he keeps missing that train. And decided after going into every single thing that he doesn’t like about the Affordable Care Act, including a lot of the stuff that is actually not in the law, he would then go through what he actually likes about the law.

Me personally, every time I see a story from The Onion, I gotta take it with at least one train of thought. I realize they report more facts than Fox News even and perhaps are the most trusted news organization for Millennial’s. But hear them report that Senator Cruz, whose perhaps the most prominent Tea Party member in Congress, come out in favor of the Affordable Care Act, would be like hearing Rick Santorum come out on favor of prostitution and bigamy, in the same speech.

But again you give a twenty-hour speech and anything can happen, including finally running out of stuff to say and saying things you don’t believe.

Yale University: Nicholas Wolterstorff- On Faith in Liberal Democracy

Source:Yale University- Professor Nicholas Wolterstorff. 

Source:FRS FreeState

"Miroslav Volf interviews Nicholas Wolterstorff of Yale University about the place of faith in liberal democracy. Wolterstorff discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various secular and  faith-based conceptions of justice and the public sphere, making a case for the relevance of religiously shaped discourses in deliberative democracies." 

From Yale University

Faith in liberal democracy is about the freedom of and from religion. But that they are separate from the state and that all of these things come from the Constitution. 

People have the right to practice, or not practice religion and that we have separation of church and state based on the Constitution. And that even though we have the freedom to believe what we believe. But we do not have the right to force our views on others especially through law. The right to be heard, but not the right to harass people with your views who disagree with you.

Liberals, get stereotyped as being anti-religion and that if anything we would want to see religion eliminated if not outlawed in society. Even though Liberals created the Freedom of Religion when we wrote the U.S. Constitution and created the United States. As well as the Bill of Rights that gives us all of these individual rights and freedom of choice to make these decisions for ourselves. Not the right to force our views on people who disagree with us. Which is much different and fascist even. But the fact is liberalism is built around individual freedom, rights and choices. And not statist, or fascist at all.

Now, I do believe that Liberals tend to be more secular than let's say Christian Conservatives, or Islamists. That goes without saying, because a big part of liberalism has to do with reason and evidence. That you go where the best available facts and evidence are. And take your positions and make your views based on that. Instead of using faith to make those decisions for yourself. 

But this is much different from saying that just because I or someone else is secular, that everyone else should be, or they have to be as well even through law. But again, liberalism is about individual freedom, choice and rights. That the individual can make these decisions for themselves.

Philadelphia Phillies TV: MLB 1981- Chicago Cubs vs Philadelphia Phillies: Full Game

Source:Classic Phillies TV- with the Phillies & Cubs from 1981.

Source:The Daily Press

“October 1981 – Cubs vs Phillies”

From Classic Phillies TV

1981 was an interesting season for Major League Baseball to say the least. It was a strike shorten season and the genius’ at MLB decided to do a minor league play. Which was to have the division leaders of the first and second halves of the season be the playoff teams of each league. Instead of the division winners being the teams with the best overall records in each league for the entire season.

Because of the 1981 MLB playoff format, the Cincinnati Reds even though they had the best overall record in the NL West in 1981, didn’t win that division. Because the Los Angeles Dodgers had a better record in the second half of the season. 

1981 was the first four game playoff series in MLB because of the strike shortened season. The Cubs were the Cubs in 1981, finishing in last place. They parked themselves there early on that season and never left. The Phillies were again very good and trying to defend their 1980 World Series Championship.

MLB Vault: MLB 1988- World Series Game 1- Oakland Athletics @ Los Angeles Dodgers; Full Game

Source:MLB Vault- Kirk Gibson, at the plate to face Dennis Eckersley, in game 1 of the 1988 MLB World Series.

Source:The Daily Press

"Oakland Athletics 4 at Los Angeles Dodgers 5, F -- The Dodgers, already serious underdogs against the A's and Bash Brothers Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire, are given even less of a chance with injured star Kirk Gibson on the shelf. Canseco's second-inning grand slam gives Oakland a 4-3 lead until the bottom of the ninth, when dominating closer Dennis Eckersley comes on to finish it up. But with the tying run on first, Gibson limps up to pinch hit and makes World Series history with a spine-tingling, game-winning two-run homer in his only at-bat of the Series."

From MLB Vault

Source:USA Today- " Vin Scully's greatest calls: Kirk Gibson's greatest home run."

“I don’t believe what I just saw!” Which of course was Jack Buck’s famous call of Kirk Gibson’s famous home run for the Dodgers in-game 1 of the 1988 World Series off of Dennis Eckersley of the Athletics. Referring to the fact that Gibson essentially had no leg strength in that at bat, because he had two bad legs. I believe two broken ankles, perhaps just one broken ankle, but the other leg was hurt as well. And Gibson hits that home run off the best closer in MLB who was a power pitcher and for a time in the late 1980s early 1990s almost un-hittable.

The Eck ( as Dennis Eckersley was called ) was the Mariano Rivera of his generation. The Gibson home run, Kirk’s only hit in this World Series, is just an example of how great a player and hitter he was. And had he only been able to stay healthy, we are talking about a five tool player headed to first ballot status in the MLB Hall of Fame.

WJLA-TV News: 'First look: MGM National Harbor Casino Plan Unveiled'

Source:WJLA News- an employee for MGM.

Source:The New Democrat

"Here's a look at what MGM wants to build at National Harbor as part of their casino project."  

From WJLA News

National Harbor would be a perfect place for a casino, because of all of the people it would bring in. Because of the location attracting people from the Washington suburbs in Maryland, but also Virginia and Baltimore and Frederick as well. Bringing in a lot of new tax revenue for Prince George’s and the state of Maryland. And the good jobs that it will also bring to go with the tax revenue. And also allow for Maryland to really live up to being the Free State that we call ourselves by allowing for Marylanders to make their own decisions about gambling and other forms of entertainment.

ABC Sports: MLB 1988- NLCS Game 4- Los Angeles Dodgers @ New York Mets: Full Game

Source:ABC Sports- Los Angeles Dodgers LF Kirk Gibson.

Source:The Daily Press

"Los Angeles Dodgers 5 at New York Mets 4, F/12 -- Backed by homers from Darryl Strawberry and Kevin McReynolds, Dwight Gooden and the Mets enjoyed a 4-2 lead in the 9th, and seem poised to take a 3-1 series lead. But Mike Scioscia, who had only three home runs all season, had other ideas, and his two-run homer forced extra frames. Then in the 12th, Kirk Gibson foreshadowed his forthcoming World Series dramatics with a solo, go-ahead dinger off Roger McDowell. But it wasn't over yet. In the bottom half of the inning it looked as though Gibson's heroics might go to waste, as the Mets put two men on against Tim Leary. So Manager Tommy Lasorda called on his "bulldog," Orel Hershiser, to close it out. Despite having pitched into the ninth in Game 1, not to mention seven innings pitched in Game 3 the night before, Hershiser recorded the final out to tie the series at two games apiece."

From MLB Vault

The Mets and their fans have to feel that 1988 was a year that got away from them. Because the Mets and Oakland Athletics were the two best all around teams in MLB that year and neither one of them won the World series. 

1988 goes to show you that baseball is a game where if you get great pitching and play great defense, all you need to do is score enough runs to win. Which is one more run than your opponent for every game that you win. That you don’t need a great lineup and even a very good lineup to win and be successful and even win the MLB World Series. 

The 1969 Mets proved that you don't need a good, let alone very good, or great offense, to win the World Series. So did the 1985 Kansas City Royals proved that and the 1988 Los Angeles Dodgers proved that as well. Probably the three worst World Series champions at least since divisional play started in 1969.

Movie Clips: Rounders (1998) KGB, I Stick it in You!

Source:Movie Clips- KGB, played by John Malkovich.

Source:The Daily Press

“After losing a heads-up game of poker, Teddy KGB (John Malkovich) tries to goad Mike (Matt Damon) into playing a re-match.” 

From Movie Clips

One of the best scenes from Rounders, with Mike McDermott (played by Matt Damon) just beating his long time nemesis KGB. (Played by John Malkovich) And KGB obviously not feeling satisfied by that and trying to goad Mike into playing another around to get that money back. With Mike having two options: walk away and leave up from where he started and able to pay back his debts. Or get all of his money back and risk losing even more. Safe play obviously is to walk way, but like Mike said you can’t win what you don’t put in.

I’m not an expert on poker and gambling in general, but it obviously is gambling. And yes there’s skill involved and you need good skills at it to be successful and perhaps a little luck involved as well. But there’s gambling and there’s gambling and there are risks in doing anything really, especially professionally. And the good gamblers make calculated and educated risks. They just don’t walk away with money, leave owing money, because they had all the good hands at the game, or most of them. Or had almost none of the good hands.

Successful gamblers play their good hands and leave their bad ones without giving their opponents much if any idea when they have good hands and when they’re short. Which I think is the point that the Mike McDermott character played by Matt Damon was making, that gambling is not pure luck or about pure luck. But that you need good skills in it in order to be successful at it.

Accidentally In Love: 'Marilyn Monroe- Amazing'

Source:Accidentally In Love- The Amazing Hollywood Babydoll Marilyn Monroe (1926-1962)

Source:The Daily Press

“Just a quick vid i shot together . Enjoy 🙂 ……. feel free too comment” 

From Accidentally In Love 

Amazing can really sum up the short life of Marilyn Monroe. You can really do it in one word, it’s just that you have to apply it to so many aspects about her. Because there was nothing average about Marilyn in the thirty-six years that she lived from her very humble childhood.

Marilyn from being discovered in her early twenties, to her becoming the star that she became and how she presented herself throughout her career and as the star that she became.

Died fifty-one years ago and is still missed today and had she matured and learned to take care of herself, she could very well still be alive today and perhaps still out in public as a goddess in her late eighties. If anyone could do that, it would’ve been Marilyn Monroe. The woman of so many talents physical and professional, but lacked the maturity to see them through.

New America Foundation: Peter Beinart- 'On The Rise of The New Left'

Source:New America Foundation- political commentator Peter Beinart about about the New-Left in America, the Millennial version.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"In a recent piece for The Daily Beast, New America Senior Fellow Peter Beinart wrote that the Democratic Party is making its next left turn—and driving away from the center." 

From the New America Foundation

The New-Left came alive in the late 1960s as part of the Baby Boom Generation to oppose the Vietnam War and who weren’t fans of capitalism and perhaps private enterprise all together. And wanted to see the rich be forced to give up a lot of their money to take care of the poor. As well as the environmental movement and what is called the gay rights movement. 

What happened to the Boomer version of the New-Left, they essentially formed what we know as the Green Party today: a left-wing, social democratic party, that is anti-war if not anti-military all together, want tough laws when it comes to protecting the environment.Greens, are anti-American capitalism and would like to see a new American economic system that is based around a welfare state. 

The Green Socialists (as I call them) also represents part of the Far-Left in the Democratic Party, who are only Democrats in a lot of cases so they can be part of a major political party, that at least shares their values and in some cases their ideas as well, who do not want to go the third-party route. 

My point being that this movement on the Left that the Democratic Leadership needs to listen to a certain extent, that they are not big enough or posses the resources to seriously cause a revolution in the Democratic Party and force them to change. They are only big enough to cost Democrats elections when they do not show up and vote.

The Republican Party has their fringe, obviously that gets talked a lot on this blog. But the Democratic Party has there’s that looks and is outside of the American mainstream on a lot of issues as well. Not saying they’re bad people, but most Americans like the American military and support our veterans and soldiers and everything else. 

The New-Left (on the other hand) sees our military as part of the problem when it comes to world peace and even as the bad guys. 

The New-Left in America is made up for three relevant political factions: 

Closeted Socialists in and outside of the Democrat Party, who are Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats (in name only) 

As well as self-described Socialists or Democratic Socialists, people like Senator Bernie Sanders (the only self-described Socialist in Congress, but not the only one) 

People who I at least would call Neo-Communists, people who aren't self-described as Communists and perhaps aren't looking to completely overthrow our democratic form of government, but want a real political revolution in America. 

And thanks to the American economy not being as strong as dominant as it was 15 years ago, radical movements like this can emerge, because you have a lot of people who are looking for real changes to our system.

Ragma Loka: Killing John F. Kennedy (2013) Starring Rob Lowe

Source:Ragma Loka- Rob Lowe as President John F. Kennedy, during his last days alive.

Source:The Daily Press

“Recounting the chaotic events that occurred in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, PARKLAND weaves together the perspectives of a handful of ordinary individuals suddenly thrust into extraordinary circumstances: the young doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital, Dallas’ chief of the Secret Service, an unwitting cameraman who captured what became the most watched and examined film in history.” 

From Ragma Loka

I saw bits and pieces of this movie and I didn’t think it was very good. Which is probably why I only saw bits and pieces of it. I’ve caught a little more of it when it has come back on with its repeats. The movie about Kennedy from Reelz in 2011, I thought was much better and perhaps that is why they covered the entire Kennedy presidency, at least his years as President. And I thought Greg Kinnear did a much better job playing Jack Kennedy than Rob Lowe.

In late 2013, the last few months there were several movies about JFK because of the fiftieth anniversary of the JFK assassination. Including a film from PBS about the life of JFK, which was the best of what I saw. But Killing Kennedy is fairly interesting, but it really just about the last year or so JFK, including the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1962 and the Cuban missile crisis. And this movie doesn’t go into great detail about John F. Kennedy as President.

What you see in this movie, is the stuff that is better suited for tabloid news and tabloid news fans. The women of JFK including his wife Jackie and of course all the affairs that President Kennedy had, including in the White House and including with women with dangerous organized connections. Including Judy Exner and Lee Oswald’s last year or so leading up to him assassinating President Kennedy. This movie I would give a 7.5 or 8, but it’s not a great movie.

New America Foundation: Daniel Deudney- Liberal Democracy vs. Autocracy

Source:New America Foundation- hosting a discussion about liberal democracy.

Source:FRS FreeState

"G. John Ikenberry and Daniel Deudney discusses their article, "The Myth of the Autocratic Revival: Why Liberal Democracy Will Prevail". Dimitri Simes concludes the discussion." 

From the New America Foundation

I love the word liberalization as a Liberal, because it means opening things up and freeing people to live their lives. Which is what happened to Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 90s, as well as some of the former Slavic Russian republics that were part of the Soviet Union of Russia. And to the Southeastern Slavic states in the Balkans as well in the 1990s. And that is exactly what liberalism is.

Liberalization, freeing people up and allowing them to live in freedom, which seriously goes against the liberal stereotypes that liberalism is about big government and not: 

"the state that the state knows best and that freedom is essentially dangerous because it just gives people freedom to make mistakes. So you need a superstate to take care of people and limit freedom to only things that do not harm society.”

Lamar Matic: NBA 1986- Eastern Conference 1st Round Game 1- Washington Wizards @ Philadelphia 76ers: 4th Quarter

Source:Lamar Matic- the Wizards and 76ers from 1986.

Source:The Daily Press   

“One of the greatest NBA comebacks ever. The Washington Bullets are down by 17 with 4 minutes left and seems like have lost the first playoffs game of 1986. However, veteran Dan Roundfield scoring on one end and Charles Barkley with Julius Erving choking on the other lets the Bullets get back in the game and win it with an impossible game winning three by Dudley Bradley. 1986 NBA Eastern Conference Playoffs Round 1 Game 1.” 

From Lamar Matic 

Definitely one of the most surprising comeback victories of all-time and perhaps the best comeback in Bullets playoff history.

You come back from eighteen points with four minutes left in the game especially in a playoff game, you are getting a lot of breaks with the team with the lead falling asleep and thinking they’ve already won the game. Which is what the 76ers did, as well as the Bullets never giving up and coming up with a lot of great plays. Especially on defense, but scoring every time they had the ball.

When you have a big lead like this, all you really have to do is work the clock, don’t turn the ball over and hit your foul shots. You do all of those things and even if the other team scores every time they have the ball, they won’t have enough time to come all the way back. The 76ers failed to even do these basic fundamental things late in this game.

The Onion: Anthony Weiner: ‘Announces Bid For Whatever’s Left’

Source:The Onion- unemployed New York City politician Anthony Weiner, desperate for work at taxpayers expense.

Source:The Daily Press

“Apple unveils a panicked man with no ideas, Bashar Al-Assad tries a tiny bit of sarin gas on himself to see what it’s like, and a billboard alerts commuters to the existence of a situational comedy starring stand-up comedian Jerry Seinfeld. It’s the week of September 13, 2013. For more breaking news:The Onion." 

From The Onion

Too bad for Anthony Weiner, or can we call him Tony now: I mean seriously, why is The Weiner the only man in America that can’t go by a nickname? Does his sexting scandal really make his so much more special than anyone else?

Too bad his first name isn’t Richard and he’s not short, because Little Dick would’ve been the perfect nickname for him. I hear there are real job openings for real jobs out there in New York City and perhaps Tony should apply for one of them. Unless the job requires him to keep his pants on the whole time he is working. Perhaps Tony should look for a real job and get out of politics.

Apparently Tony Weiner is the only career politician/workaholic who can’t find a job. So that would be something that would make him special. If you saw The Onion report about the guy with the 42,000 jobs back in 2012, maybe that is why Tony can’t find one, because that workaholic has every job that was still available in New York City.

Being a workaholic without a job must be tough. That would be like a fish with no water and trying to learn how to swim. Or being an institutionalized prison inmate who has spent most of your life in prison and learning that every prison and jail in America is about to be closed. And you’ll be released on the outside as a result.

With Tony Weiner’s professional background and that the fact that he’s a Weiner, he shouldn’t have any real trouble finding work in New York City. Wait, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg closed down most of the strip clubs in New York. So maybe Tony will support the nanny state less now since it is now costing him work that he’s qualified for. But he’s a former U.S. Representative and sexter, so he would be perfect in Washington, if he wants to come back. And he could get himself involved in sexy scandals there, without worrying about it costing him his job.

Washington Post: 'Six Presidents Make The Case For Foreign Intervention'

Source:The Washington Post- Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) 40th President of the United States (1981-89) 

Source:FRS FreeState 

"On In Play, Karen Tumulty revisits the key moments in which U.S. presidents have addressed the nation making a case for war or selling intervention in a foreign country." 

From The Washington Post

America has a history of intervening on wars in other countries and making mistakes there. Like in Korea in the 1950s and Vietnam in the 1960s and the 2003 War in Iraq. Which makes it harder for American presidents to intervene in other countries even when innocent people are being murdered by their own government’s. Like we are seeing in Congress right now when it comes to Syria. But America also has a history of intervening in places to protect the innocent that went successfully.

Like Europe during World War II, Iraq in 1990-91, the Balkans in the mid and late 1990s and Libya two years ago. Which is why when we do things like this it has to be limited to where we have clear interests, where the case can be made and where we can make a realistic and positive difference, you know the situation going in, you know what you would need to do to make a positive difference, you know what your capabilities are going in and what it will take to accomplish that mission successfully, and if you answer all of those questions positively that you know exactly what you’re doing and have a good plan and know you can pull it off successfully, then you make that call.

America should never intervene in other countries conflicts simply, because we don’t like the government there. Which is essentially what we did in 2003 in Iraq. Iraq didn’t even have the military to defend itself let alone threaten America or anyone else in the Middle East. They became a third world country with a third world military. Thanks to the 1991 Gulf War, all the economic sanctions and the weapons inspectors taking out their weapons. 

America should only intervene to defend our own interests like defending an ally and when we can play a positive role. And also when we’re not by ourselves and have others that can help us.

Scott McGee: 'TCM Star of The Month For September: Kim Novak'

Source:Scot McGee- Turner Classic Movies honoring Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak as their Star of The Month, for September, 2013. Well-deserved. 

Source:The Daily Press

":60 promo for Turner Classic Movies Star of the Month Kim Novak, September 2013. Written/produced by Scott McGee.  Edited by Jay Bellissimo. Voiced by Sylvia Villagran."

From Scott McGee

A gorgeous sexy baby who always leaves you wanting to see more of her movies and appearances. I haven’t seen many women who are that gorgeous, sexy as well as baby-face adorable, who makes her characters seem so real, because she makes her characters part of her. Which is how Kim Novak acted and why she’s been so successful.

The phrase always leaves you wanting more can almost sound negative if not insulting, because it implies someone, or something is not good enough. But in Kim Novak’s case that means she’s so hot and great that you want to see as much of her as possible. Like in:“please don’t go away.”

I believe Kim Novak is almost an under appreciated Hollywood Goddess and actress, because she gave up her career pretty quickly. She was finished acting by the late 1960s when she was in her mid-30s when she probably would have at least one if not two more great decades ahead of her where should could have had a great movie career. Or perhaps done TV as well and had a whole list of great roles in front of her. Because she was versatile and could play anyone. That goes to the always leaves you wanting more. Because she was so good and looked so great that you never wanted to see her go away.

Kim Novak or Baby Kim (as I call her) is truly one of the best actress’s I have ever seen and one of the best looking. This hot baby-faced woman with the great body who was also a hell of an actress who again made her characters seem and brought them to real-life. Who also had this adorable silly side that could make you laugh. And yet her career as an actress was only about 10-15 years and that might even include her brief return in 1985 to work on prime-time soap operas. Who could have had a long great career and be remembered as one of the best actress’s of her generation if not all-time.

ABC News: This Week- Striking Syria: 'This Week’s Roundtable'

Source:ABC News- This Week roundtable, talking about a possible American air strike in Syria.

Source:FRS FreeState

"Rep. Adam Kinzinger Donna Brazile, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Greta Van Susteren and Dan Senor.

From ABC News

President Barack Obama, in the political battle of his life trying to make the case two years late in my point of view. We should’ve been debating and talking about military intervention in Syria in 2011. Which would’ve saved million of lives. But as the saying goes, it is what it is. And President Obama is in the political situation that he is today and will have to make a very good case to avoid losing embarrassing votes this week in Congress.

The case for going into Syria, is like that in the Balkans in the 1990s, Bosnia and then later Kosovo. Saving innocent lives from being murdered by their own government. And giving the Syrian rebels a fighting chance, literally, to take on the Assad Regime and hopefully defeat them. And bring a more responsible government to Syria that can hopefully be represented of the country. And govern Syria responsibility.

But we do nothing, innocent Syrians will continue to be murdered by their own government. Why the West says that’s awful and you shouldn’t do that. But without the, stones to do anything to stop them.

Terrie Hawkes: In Tight Leather Jeans in Boots

Source:The Daily Press- Leather jeans in boots on the street.

Source:The Daily Press

"Terrie Hawks in tight leather pants." Originally from Terrie Hawkes, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

Didn't get to see the face of Terrie Hawkes, whoever she is and if I'm ignorant about that, I apologize, but we didn't get to see her face until the end of this video. But the quick look of her, she looks like a gorgeous blonde and of course with a great body. Tall and well-built, with the perfect outfit to highlight those features. The skin-tight leather jeans in boots and with a great walk to show people who she looks and sexy she is. 

And I just love women who know they are sexy and proud that others see that as well. I just would've made this video at least two-minutes longer with the same woman and the same outfit and gotten to see more of her face and you would've gotten a very good look at her face and body in the same shots in that great outfit. The tight leather jeans in boots that she pulls off perfectly and about as well as it can be done. I just wish she did it longer and this would've been a great sexy, but tasteful video of a gorgeous sexy women in a very stylish outfit and not looking like a porn star.

Bob Dylan & Joan Baez: 1963 March on Washington

Source:Reuters- Joan Baez and Bob Dylan performing at the 1963 March On Washington.

Source:The Daily Press 

"Singers Joan Baez and Bob Dylan perform together during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in this August 28, 1963 file photo shot by U.S. Information Agency photographer Rowland Scherman and provided to Reuters by the U.S. National Archives in Washington on August 21, 2013. In the coming week, Washington will play host to an array of events marking the 50th anniversary of the march and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech.

REUTERS/Rowland Scherman/U.S. Information Agency/U.S. National Archives (UNITED STATES – Tags: POLITICS ANNIVERSARY ENTERTAINMENT) ATTENTION EDITORS – THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS.THIS PICTURE IS DISTRIBUTED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BY REUTERS, AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS" 

From Reuters 

"Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, the Freedom Singers, and Len Chandler performing 'Eyes On The Prize' at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, August 28th 1963. The song is a well-known folk song largely associated with the Civil Rights Movement.

Source is straight from the archives, albeit covered with a logo and timestamps." 

Source:History in Motion- Eyes On The Prize performed by Joan Baez and Bob Dylan, and others.

From History in Motion 

Eyes On The Prize is the perfect song I believe to close out the 1963 March On Washington, because it told the American Civil Rights Movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King and his followers not to lose focus and that there's still much work to do. 

Keep in mind, this is in the late summer of 1963 in Washington, when it's still hot and humid around there and a few months before President John F. Kennedy was assassinated and just a couple months after President Kennedy publicly endorsed the civil rights legislation that was in Congress. 

The 1964 Civil Rights Law hadn't even been passed yet, that didn't happen to the summer of the 1964. Which meant African-Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities could still be denied their constitutional rights and access to American society simply because of their race or ethnicity. 

I think what the summer of 1963 is about with the March On Washington sort of being the Super Bowl of that summer (even though the Super Bowl was 4 years away) is that to paraphrase Bob Dylan: times were a changin. I believe the 1950s finally ended in the summer of 63 culturally and a lot of younger Americans recognized the new America where America would be for everyone. Not just for Anglo-Saxon males. 

The civil rights movement was part of the new America, but Hippies come into force politically and culturally in 1965 with so many Americans now feeling the freedom to be themselves and not have to live and think just like their parents and grandparents. 

Frantz Kebreau: Malcolm X: ‘Black Democrats are ‘Traitors’

Source:Frantz Kebreau- When Europeans ruled over Africans in America. 

Source:The Daily Press

"Stolen History  … Share away!! Second from the Malcolm X series. Although I do not agree with his early philosophy, he sets the record straight and reveals the Truth about the Democratic Party!  

Correction Sen. Fulbright is from AR not AK.” 

From Frantz Kebreau 

Malcolm X explaining perfectly why African-Americans (and I would add any race of people in America) shouldn’t be tied down to any political party in America. Because once a political party feels that certain voters will always vote for them and that they have no other place to go, that is when they get taken advantage and the party leadership feels we no longer have to listen to them: “Because they are going to vote for us anyway.” 

African-Americans in the 1950s and 60s were politically taken advantage by the Democratic Party. They got taken advantage of by the Democratic Party because the right-wing Dixiecrats in Congress, the Southern Caucus were blocking civil rights legislation, while Republicans in Congress were in favor of it especially in the Northeast and Midwest. And today the parties have essentially flipped flopped geographically and ideologically.

Minister Malcolm X: Message To America

Source:Islam 6639- Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X.

Source:The Daily Press

“Malcolm X delivers speech Message to the Grass Roots

Northern Grass Roots Leadership Conference

Detroit, Michigan” 

From Islam 6639 

Malcolm X was correct in the sense that the racial discrimination that African-Americans faced from the time the African slaves were freed in the 1860s, until the 1960s with the civil rights laws, was a human rights problem. But where he was wrong was that the U.S. Government was able to solve these problems at least in the sense that all Americans are supposed to be treated under law equally with the same constitutional rights. And generally that is true now with the passage of the civil rights laws of the 1960s.

All Americans are entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as every other American in America. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender or religion. Does that mean that all the laws are always enforced equally for all Americans. Of course not, because any system that is run by humans won’t be run perfectly. Mistakes will be made and you’ll have bad apples (so to speak) and bad people in any system.

Bad apples, are people who feel some people because of their race shouldn’t be treated as well as other Americans of a different race. But under law we are all entitled to the same rights and responsibilities. And under law we are all supposed to be treated equally under law. That wasn’t the case pre-1960s civil rights laws. And that is one thing that Malcolm X never understood, but unfortunately he didn’t live long enough to see that.

As far as this Malcolm X speech, I don’t agree with him on everything. At least pre-1964, before he went to Saudi Arabia and got to be with Muslims of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, he was basically an African-American Nationalist, a racial Nationalist, a racist even. There are good people and bad people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, including European-Americans. And it’s only the bad people that he saw when it came to the European-American community.