Barbara Walters Interviews of a Lifetime: Raquel Welch (1985)

Source:Drew David- Hollywood Goddess Raquel Welch.

Source:The Daily Review

Raquel Welch by 1985, was not the big star in Hollywood that she was in the early and mid 1970s, but she was still a big star. Who could find work easily and didn't have much if any trouble staying busy. She was 44-45 at this point and as you can see you still looked great. Even with the short hair, but take it up twenty-five years later to 2010 the year she turned 70, she was still red-hot and baby-faced adorable as a seventy-year old women who was collecting Medicare and Social Security. But that is Raquel Welch. She's said several times before that she sees part of her job to look great all the time. To take care of herself which is what she's been doing ever since she came to Hollywood in the 1960s.

Raquel, isn't a Hollywood goddess because she was born with a great face and body and hair. Those things are obviously part of it, but the real reason is because she's a true professional. She takes care of herself and does projects that makes her look great. And by the mid and late 1970s I believe we finally got to see Raquel as the actress and entertainer, doing roles that showcased her talents as a singer and as a comedian. Myra Breckinridge, whatever you think of the movie and I love the film, she was great and very funny in it, but go up to 1977 with Mother Jugs and Speed, where she uses all of the sexual talk about her and plays off of it and throws it back in those guys face. To show them how they sound, you see the great comedic timing, ability and improvisation of her as well.

Raquel Welch, is a true Hollywood goddess, because yes she's physically a goddess, but you need more than that otherwise you're going to burn out at a certain point when you're no longer considered fresh. The reason why Raquel stands up from lets say Hollywood playmates and even bimbos, because she has real talent as an actress and entertainer. She's a Golden Globe winner and has worked on Seinfeld and done other TV roles mostly in comedy. And has done more TV in her seventies as well. You don't last this long in Hollywood if you can't do the job. Play the parts that are given you, or even have the ability to create parts for yourself if you don't like what's coming your way. Raquel Welch, is built to last and when she turns 80, she'll probably still be seen as a Hollywood goddess.

Paul Richards: The Free Speech Movement- Civil Disobedience in Berkeley (1964)

Source:Paul Richards-

Source:The Daily Review

I hate as a Liberal hearing California being called a liberal state and some bastion of liberalism. And just go back to the 1960s and how they came down on students who were simply looking to express their free speech rights on campus and get involved in politics. If you go to the last ten years or so and they were one of the first states to pass a same-sex marriage ban and I believe they had at one time a ban on homosexuality, at least as it relates to sex. Ronald Reagan, was Governor of California there and served two terms from 1967-75. They recalled a moderate Democratic Governor in Gray Davis in 2003 and replaced him with a modern Republican in Arnold Schwarzenegger.

California, even with their individualistic hippie movement in the 1960s that was based in Northern California and a certain extent Southern California, was at the heart in support of the political correctness movement, but coming from the right-wing in America. Especially at the state level in the California State Government. And trying to ban students from protesting and speaking out against the political issues of the day. Now they're reversed course and still support political correctness, but do it from the Far-Left instead of the Far-Right. And will deny right-wing speakers from speaking on their campus's and even left-wing speakers like Bill Maher, if they don't like what he has to say. His views on Islam in late 2014, is an excellent example of that.

What the free speech movement of the 1960s especially the mid 60s starting around 1963 and going through 64 and 65 and through the Vietnam War, was about was free speech. The right for American citizens who happen to be in college to express themselves on the issues. Protest in favor of equal and civil rights for all Americans and protest against the Vietnam War. The political correctness warriors back then, were on the Right. Who still believed it was 1956 or something and that all Americans looked at America and American culture and the world the same way and if there was anyone who didn't share those cultural and political views. they needed to be shut up. Which is how the New-Left in America reacts when people disagree with them on cultural issues today.

The free speech movement back then and I at least believe still does today when you look at Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins, to use as examples and you have Conservative Libertarians on the Right as well, but back then at least the free speech movement came from the Left. From people who loved being Americans and America, but especially loved the rights, freedom and responsibility that came with being an American. Like Freedom of Speech and choice, the right for Americans to be themselves. And not have to either by legal, or cultural force to live life the way that the so-called establishment believes that they should. Which is what the hippie movement and the free speech movement, gay right and so-forth. The right for Americans to be Americans which are individuals. And not clones of the establishment.
Source:Paul Richards

Constitution Daily: 'Happy Days Are Here Again: The 21st Amendment Repeals Prohibition'

Source:National Constitution Center- "Let's break out the champagne: it's time to party!"

Source:The New Democrat

"The 21st Amendment to the Constitution was certainly popular on this day in 1933, when it was ratified and ended the long national experiment known as Prohibition. Here is what the text actually says."

Read the rest at National Constitution Center

"A short video detailing the unintended consequences of prohibition, the repeal of the 18th Amendment, and the approval of the 21st Amendment."

From Reading Through History

Source:Reading Through History- Americans protesting against the 21st Amendment.

If you think the so-called War on Drugs in America goes back to 1971 which is way too long for a failed bogus war to go back to, you would think that at some point the boy genius’ in Washington would get the memo that something is not working and a change of course is needed, you would be wrong about the year the WOD started. The first American War on Drugs started in January, 1920, but back then it only took the genius’ in Washington thirteen-years to figure that something is rotten in Denmark and a change of course is now needed.

Imagine if the genius’ in Washington figured out by 1984 that the second War on Drugs known as the Controlled Substance Act, was a total failure (and I’m being nice) and decided to repeal it then, or even in 1985: how many lives would have been saved as a result in prison spaces, prison cells, new prisons all together if we were instead sending drug users and addicts to drug rehab at their expense instead of prison, or even jail. And getting them off of their addiction so they could move on with their lives. Halfway houses, night school, job training, vocational training, etc. How much in precious tax dollars would we have saved by then? As well as legalizing with taxation and regulation of marijuana.

Alcohol, by the way is a drug for anyone sober enough to understand that as well as remember what its like to be drunk. Which is a form of a high and when you prohibit alcohol like you’re prohibiting lets say marijuana, which has similar side-effects as alcohol, you’re adding to the War on Drugs. Because alcohol is a drug. Alcohol prohibition, didn’t work, because the overwhelming majority of Americans back then over eighty-years ago and today, like to drink alcohol. Even if that meant going to jail for it. And Americans tend to be smart enough to know what alcohol can do to them, so they’re not going to abuse it. Which can also be said about marijuana.

So this idea that just you make something illegal simply because you don’t like it and because it comes with dangerous consequences like people being stupid and deciding to drive and so-forth while intoxicated, doesn’t mean people will stop drinking what they enjoy drinking. Just means they may end up in jail for it. And for what, because they drank something that wasn’t good for them and nothing else. Good thing Americans don’t like heroin, cocaine and meth and even tobacco as much as alcohol. Or we would have to take out loans from China and Saudi Arabia to pay for all of our government expenses. Because most of the country would either be too high, or in jail, but not working and paying taxes for that work.

The War on Drugs, whether it was alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and 30s, or marijuana, cocaine, heroin and meth in the 1970s, all the way up till today, doesn’t work. Because again good people even who don’t normally hurt people and go out of their way not to hurt innocent people, will smoke a joint and get high if they really want to, especially if they think they can get away with it. Or don’t think they could be arrested simply for consuming a product that is not hurting anyone else and perhaps not even them as well.

Even big government, is too small and not smart enough to be the national parents of a country of three-hundred and twenty-million people who is three-thousand miles long and two-thousand miles wide. At some point government has to prioritize at all levels and layout exactly what it should do based on what it is capable of doing. What they have the resources to pay for based on what their taxpayers are willing to pay for. Instead of trying to micro-manage everyone’s life for them. And instead focus on how people interact with each other. Not to run our lives, but to prevent and punish people when we actually hurt others. But short of that just leave us the hell alone and let free adults be exactly that.

Associated Press: Lynne Hollander-Savio: 'Berkley's Campus Free Speech Movement at 50'

Source:Associated Press- Back when Berkeley believed in free speech and the First Amendment.

Source:The Daily Review

"Lynne Hollander Savio, a former student activist and wife of the late Mario Savio, remembers the 1964 Free Speech Movement that launched a wave of student activism at the University of California, Berkeley and college campuses across the country. (Dec. 2)"

From the Associated Press

The Millennial's today who are still in college, the so-called Social Justice Warriors who want to establish their form of political correctness on the entire country who believe that minority Americans, are entitled to never having to hear anything that offends them, could learn so much from the Baby Boomers of the 1960s. The Hippies, who weren't fighting for collectivism and censorship, political correctness, but instead were fighting for individual freedom and Freedom of Speech. The right for Free Americans to express exactly how they feel about issues. On and off campus.

The Hippies, the long beards of the 1960s, the Baby Boomers, were fighting against the right-wing establishment who believe America was still in the 1950s. When individualism and individuality, were still not common and if anything looked down upon. Where people were told how to think, instead of taught how to learn and then base their own views on what they just learned. Where individual freedom and free speech were only tolerated if people were doing, saying and believing what the establishment approved of.

Again, free speech is exactly that. Take it for what its worth, because it by itself is not designed to make you feel good or bad, but to express how someone feels and when done right inform people as well. 'This is where you're doing well and this is where you need improvement. This is what you should do less of if not stop all together. This is what you should be doing more of.' And these are just some examples of what free speech is. Which is something the long beards of today, the Millennial's who are in college simply don't understand and approve of.

It means that you have the constitutional right to express how you feel about someone, or some group, or something, but that person next to you and everyone else not only have the constitutional right to not only tell you what they think about what you have to say, but express their own views on the same subject, or any other subject that they want to talk about. And you have the same constitutional right to express how you feel about what they have to say about whatever they're talking about as well.

Just because America has a history of racial and ethnic discrimination, which is the worst part of our national history, doesn't protect ethnic, racial and religious minorities from having to hear anything critical about themselves or their group in the future. Especially when the criticism is accurate. There's nothing bigoted about the truth and even when someone delivers half-truths about people perhaps to make partisan points and even racial or ethnic points to make a group seem worst than they actually are, you can always present the rest of the story and point out whatever hypocrisy the commentator is making.

There's nothing bigoted about saying that women and gays are treated like second-class citizens and slaves, or risk death if they try to convert from Islam in the Arab and broader Muslim World, since those things are actually true. Just like gays and women are treated like second-class citizens in the Bible Belt in America. Free speech, is free and facts don't lie and when someone is actually offended by the truth, then they have a real problem with dealing with reality. And have real self-improvement issues to deal with beyond whatever negative facts that have already come out about them. But that is no reason from censoring the truth and free speech. Especially in a liberal democracy like America.

National Constitution Center: Debating Affirmative Action

Source:National Constitution Center-

Source:The New Democrat

As a Liberal, I’m against racial preferences regardless of who they’re tended to favor over any other race and in favor of equal rights and protection, civil rights and civil liberties and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not because I’m not a Liberal, but because I am. Because I got this wild Martin L. King notion that everyone all Americans should be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. Which really is about as liberal of a notion and value as liberalism gets. Liberals, truly believe in racial tolerance. Not just for minorities, but for all people regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality.

The same reasons why I argue in favor of free speech whether I agree with the speech or not, because I’m a Liberal and not because I’m not. When you have racial preferences even if they’re designed to help minorities over the majority, you’re still approving a form of racial discrimination. You’re saying that certain races of people should get special treatment under law over another, because of their race and circumstances. Just because one race of Americans and in this case European-Americans or Caucasians, have benefited from special treatment in the past, doesn’t mean other Americans are now entitled to special treatment for themselves. It was wrong for Caucasians to benefit because of their race in the past and its wrong for anyone else to benefit because of their race today.

The problem with government in many cases and why it tends to be ineffective and not trusted, is because they like to live under their own laws while they enforce other laws for everyone else. They say we can’t practice racial, ethnic and gender discrimination against other Americans, when that is exactly what they do with racial preferences under so-called affirmative action. If government wants Americans to not judge people for good and bad because of race, ethnicity and gender, then they can’t do those things and expect to be trusted and respected.

Americans, might not be the sharpest tools in the shed as a people, but we know hypocrisy when we see it and we see it everyday. Racial preferences under so-called affirmative action, days are numbered, because we’re finally starting to become that MLK dream of a country. We’re becoming that country that doesn’t like it when Americans benefit from, or are denied access in this country because of our race and ethnicity. And that is because of the Millennial’s. The same generation that says minorities are entitled to never have to hear anything that they find offensive. Also believes in Equal Protection Under The Law and oppose racial and ethnic discrimination.

When the U.S. Supreme Court most likely kills racial preferences under so-called affirmative action in America perhaps as early as next year, it will give America a great opportunity to develop a real affirmative action policy in this country. That won’t be built off of racial discrimination and preferences, but on empowering Americans who have been left behind in this country including because of their race and ethnicity. But instead empowers Americans who come from underdeveloped communities to be able to make a quality life for themselves. And even be able to stay in their community that now has quality schools, infrastructure and new economic development.

What we should do instead as a country is build on the 1964 Civil Rights Act and expanding it to include gays and having a real education, infrastructure and economic system, that’s built off of economic development that says all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, and economic background, are entitled to a real shot at achieving their own American dream. Of living in economic and personal freedom based on what they’re created for themselves form their own skills and production. Not because of their race, or ethnicity, or father’s income level.

You don’t achieve a racial and color-blind society with big government saying, “it’s only okay when we do it.” You do that by saying it’s not okay at all and when you do it there are heavy economic prices to pay for it. To encourage you not to do it at all and to never do it again if you do it in the first place. That is what the 1964 CRA should be about. Not to expand the criminal justice system in America which is way over capacity to begin with. But to say racial and ethnic discrimination is wrong period and is illegal and have real strong enforcement. To encourage victims of racial discrimination to come out and report even if they think they can’t win their case, or can’t afford a good attorney.

Because good civil rights attorneys, would take their case anyway and their would be a criminal case to prosecute as well. And the victims would be entitled to financial compensation if the court finds that they’re victims of racial discrimination in the workplace, or in college, to use as examples. But we don’t create a society where Americans aren’t judged by their race and ethnicity with government not practicing what it preaches. That is what I mean by racial and color blindness, a society where Americans aren’t judged by their race, color, or ethnicity. Not a society that pretends its blind and can’t see race and ethnicity, but where we don’t judge people by those things.

The Week in Review: December 2015

Source:The Daily Review-

Source:The Daily Review

A slow week on this blog as far as activity. This blog hasn’t posted anything since Wednesday night, because I had a crazy week. I had to get my bike to the bike shop, making plans for the holiday season including getting together with friends who are coming to town who I haven’t seen in a while, as well as friends who live in town that I haven’t seen in a while before I head out to the West Coast, Seattle to be precise on the 23rd. Returning calls yesterday that I missed, because my phone was dead and didn’t get it get back until Saturday afternoon.

Speaking of that, I have a friend from high school and we go back to early 1991 our freshmen year in high school. My birthday was last Tuesday and he finally called me, because he was finally able to get my phone number and manage to hang on to it. At least long enough to call me. He’s been messaging me on Facebook every time he’s wanted to talk to me, really since 2011, because he now lives on the West Coast where he’s been since he graduated from college in the early 2000s. He’s lost my cell number and I only have a cell number, every year at least since 2011. And I told him the last time he Facebook messaged me, “that if you want to talk to me, you’re going to have to get my number and call me.”

We only talk about once a year anyway, because we’ve drifted apart the last 10-15 years and don’t have much in common anymore. And talk and get together during the holiday season because he comes back in town every year to see his family for the holidays. And we generally get together for the holidays. Anyway he finally managed to get my number from a mutual friend and he called me on birthday last Tuesday night. We talked for about an hour, caught up, talked about what we might do together as well get together with mutual friends and all hanging out together in a big group. It was a good chat and the phone number issue never came up.

My I-Phone dies on Wednesday and I mean just died absolutely no life whatsoever in the phone. Didn’t even respond to my charger. I make a call with it on Wednesday afternoon and it’s probably at 80-90% power at that point. I go take a shower, come back about twenty-minutes later and the phone is simply dead and non-responsive. The call I made was to the bike shop, I was just returning their call, because they wanted to ask me questions about the bike. The call was maybe ten-minutes and the battery on my phone is pretty strong to begin with. Tried a couple different chargers on it as well as calling the I-Phone with a portable phone and the phone didn’t respond to any of that. So I knew I had a problem and I was going to have to get the phone looked at.

I called the Apple Store in Bethesda, Maryland to make an appointment. Great store and very customer friendly and responsive. You can see why they have sold out football stadium crowds of business everyday and why people have to camp out the night before outside of the store people trying to buy the latest, well I-Phone or computer, just to get service there while they’re still young. But that’s the problem, because they’re so popular and efficient, at least in Bethesda, its hard to get timely service there. I made an appointment on Thursday to get my phone looked at and was able to get the appointment yesterday. They’re not called bar genius’ for nothing and I’m not talking about making drinks.

The guy who worked with me at the store, tried a couple a different chargers as well as scanning the phone with another device and opening the phone up to see what might be the problem. He finally got the phone to reboot and was able to get life back in the phone. And probably had the phone fixed about ten-minutes later after he saw me. And told me, “sometimes these phones just crash and shut off and perhaps just need a break and a chance to reboot and come back.” I’m paraphrasing, but that is pretty close and he told me what I can do to fix the phone myself the next time it simply dies on me and doesn’t respond to the charger.

There was plenty on my plate that I wanted to blog about last week, but I was borderline mentally exhausted by Wednesday. Really just dealing with my bike which is how I get around for the most part as far as running day-to-day errands, not having a phone for three days and getting word out that if you need to contact me, you’re going to have to email, or send me a private message on one of these social networks that I’m on. Dealing with what I might be doing the week of Christmas with hanging out with friends and then heading out-of-town a week from this coming Wednesday. This week should be pretty active on the blog and I’m looking forward to really my last active week on the blog before I go out-of-town and before the new year.
Source:Rascal Flatts Vevo

Constitution Daily: 'The First Amendment Speech Debate on College Campuses'

Source:Constitution Center- this should be a great place where the battlefield of ideas and debate goes on everyday. Where people are required to think and learn, especially about things that they don't understand or agree with.

Source:The Daily Review 

"Jeffrey Rosen: [00:00:00] I'm Jeffrey Rosen president and CEO of the national Constitution Center and welcome to We the People, a weekly show of constitutional debate. The national Constitution Center is the only institution in America chartered by Congress to increase awareness and understanding of the Constitution among the American people on a nonpartisan basis. Recently President Trump announced that he will soon sign an executive order that requires colleges and universities to "support Free Speech if they want Federal research dollars." On today's episode of we the people we ask, would the order be a good idea? What would the consequences be and would it be consistent with the Constitution? Joining us to debate the Constitutional and legal merits of the proposed executive order are two great friends of the national Constitution Center and two of America's leading experts on campus free speech. Sitting with me here at the NCC studio is Sigal Ben-Porath who is a professor of Education, philosophy and political science at the University of Pennsylvania. Her work focuses on citizenship education and political philosophy. And she's the author of the recent book free speech on campus. Sigal thank you so much for braving the cold and joining us here today in studio." 

From the National Constitution Center 

"As part of Uncomfortable Learning at Williams College, Greg Lukianoff spoke at Williams College about how colleges suppress free speech. Greg talked about the challenges that students have faced, such as students being arrested for handing out copies of the Constitution or Drexel's rule against derogatory laughter. He also addressed what students can do to encourage debate and free speech at colleges." 

Source:Uncomfortable Learning- Greg Lukianoff, talking about free speech on college campuses.

From Uncomfortable Learning

This point has been made several times before and I am one of those bloggers who has made this point over and over, but college is about learning new ideas, thoughts and expressions. If it's censorship that you want, then perhaps you need to create time machine or something that will take you back to the 1950s when the words damn and hell were essentially forbidden in public. Well, at least on TV and in the movies. 

And if it’s just a nice polite world that you’re looking for (well, for minorities that is, leaving majorities subjected to whatever everyone else wants to say about them for good and bad) then perhaps you need to create your own country. Perhaps Paradise Island or someplace in the Pacific or Caribbean where there isn’t any hate or bigotry. (At least towards minorities, that is) 

To paraphrase President Andrew Shepard from The American President: America, is not easy. You have to want it bad in order live and make it here. Because we’re a country where you can essentially say whatever the hell you want to short of inciting violence, falsely accusing people, or harassing people. 

Americans, have the constitutional right to be enlightened, but we also have a constitutional right to be assholes. We also have the constitutional to be truth tellers even if what we have to say may tend to offend people who we are talking about.

That is called America, that is called liberal democracy, that is called the land of the free. This is what a liberal society and free society is about. The right for people to be free and live freely even if what we’re doing and what we have to say may tend to offend people who are oversensitive, or have much more culturally conservative perspective on life. 

America is not a good place for tight asses and people who can’t take a joke and who always find the one cloud on a beautiful sunny day. America, is about freedom and individuality and free expression. Even if that may tend to offend people who can’t ether take a joke and even understand criticism, let alone take it.

I’m almost to the point that I believe everyone who attends college in America should be required to pass a class on both the U.S. Constitution and First Amendment and Bill of Rights in general. Because apparently they didn’t bother to learn those things in high school. I had to take and pass a government course in high school in Maryland in the early nineties just to graduate from high school. When most of these students weren’t even born yet. Gives you a little idea how old I am. And I’m glad I did do that, because it’s a reason why I’m a political junky and blogger today.

But I guess today’s students were too busy texting the student who sits right next to them, or listening to their I-Pod in class, or googling what shoes Khloe Kardashian wore with her new bag when she went shopping in Beverly Hills last weekend. Or whatever else they might have done when they should have been paying attention to their teacher’s lecture on American history and social studies. 

You want to know why Americans get stereotyped as stupid? I’ll tell you anyway: because we now have a generation of Americans who don’t understand their country’s history and form of government and their own constitutional rights, like Freedom of Speech.

And when these kids finally get to college after finally completing summer school, it suddenly occurred to them that some Americans say some rough things about other Americans including minority Americans and some of those negative things are negative facts. And they’ve decided they’re going to try to force their sense of decency on the rest of the country. But America simply doesn’t work that way. 

America, again is that gigantic melting pot of a country. The largest, the most diverse, most beautiful, the freest melting pot in the world. Where all sorts of people have the right to express their own views. And they can’t be shut up for telling the truth. Or because people can’t take a joke, or simply don’t like what someone has to say.

The Onion: House 'Speaker Paul Ryan 'Discovers Half-Finished Escape Tunnel Leading Out of Speaker's Office'

Source:The Onion- Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) trying to escape the Tea Party, perhaps leave early?

Source:The Daily Review 

"WASHINGTON—Moving a 19th-century armchair away from the mahogany-paneled wall as he rearranged his new office Wednesday, recently elected House Speaker Paul Ryan reportedly stumbled upon a half-finished escape tunnel leading out of the Speaker’s chambers. “Oh, man, look at this thing—it must go back 100 feet!” said Ryan, who found the makeshift passageway strewn with numerous worn-down Montblanc fountain pens that had apparently been used to chip away at the plaster wall, the marble and brick of the Capitol building’s foundation, and the packed earth beyond. “Looks like he was digging away from Capitol Hill and toward the Amtrak station. God, he must have spent years on this.” At press time, a startled Ryan was said to be shrieking loudly after opening his office’s Lincoln-era cherry armoire and finding himself eye-to-eye with a homemade, business-suit-clad dummy that his predecessor had intended to prop up behind his desk to provide sufficient cover when making a getaway." 

From The Onion 

"Republican Congressmember Paul Ryan is set to become House speaker after winning his party’s backing. Ryan replaces John Boehner, who announced his resignation last month after a lengthy dispute with far-right members of his own party. The tea party "Freedom Caucus" had threatened to hold a no-confidence vote amid disagreements with Boehner over negotiating with Democrats and how to use the Republicans’ House majority. Boehner was pressured to take a more confrontational approach with the White House and congressional Democrats over issues including government spending, immigration reform, Obamacare and abortion. Ryan is known for crafting sweeping budget proposals that target public spending, cut taxes for the wealthy and impose deep budget cuts. We speak to journalists David Cay Johnston and John Nichols.

Democracynow.org - Democracy Now!, is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on 1,300+ TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9am ET:Democracy Now." 

Source:Democracy Now- Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) "What have I gotten myself into?" LOL

From Democracy Now

After spending a few months trying to lead the Tea Party and rest of the House Republican Conference, which might be harder than trying to lead a pack of wild horses for the very first time, new Speaker of the House Paul Ryan might be looking for an escape tunnel in the Speaker’s office. “What have I gotten myself into? I can’t lead these people, no one can. It’s like trying to tell Anarchists what to do.” Speaker Ryan’s first quote walking into his first House Republican Conference meeting as Speaker. Well according to The Onion anyway. But The Onion is more reliable than Fox News and MSNBC combined. (Which  might not be saying anything)

Speaker Ryan, is going to have to lead a pack of wild wolves and get them to do things that they see as sinful: like funding government agencies, because you have to know that the House Tea Party Caucus, doesn’t believe in governing. Even though they supposedly serve in government. Just one of their ironies. He’s going to have to lead a Republican Conference that has no problems shutting down the government, even if it means getting exactly what they don’t want at the end of the day.

Paul Ryan, is no longer chairing the House Budget Committee or the Ways and Means Committee, where he can get away with passing legislation that will pass with only Republican votes in committee and then pass on the House floor on a party-line as well. And watch it die in the Senate like fish out of water. As Speaker, Ryan is responsible for passing legislation that can become law. Pass the Senate and then be signed by the President as well and of course pass in the House. And that means working with who the Tea Party sees as a Socialist Muslim Devil. Who secretly funds ISIS to kill Americans. Thats right, President Barack Obama. According to The Onion, I mean Tea Party.

And to do these things Speaker Ryan is going to have to do a couple of things that are seen as four-letter cuss words with the Tea Party: govern and compromise with Democrats. (Even though govern has six letters and compromise has ten letters, a little Tea Party math for you) And these things won’t be easy for him to do. The Tea Party sees themselves as Middle Eastern dictators, even though most of them are of Anglo-Saxon Protestant background and are House backbenchers. Not even freshman senators and live by the childish code: “If I can’t have that house, burn it down.”

It’s not so much Paul Ryan I’m making fun, but the people he’s now responsible for leading. Ryan, I believe is a good intelligent man who sees himself as a legislature who may end up dying in Congress even if his whole career is in the House, because he loves it so much and wants to do the right things. But like with football, a coach is only as good as his staff and his players. Then it's up to him to get the most out of what he has to work with. And like with Congress a leader is only as good as his staff, his leadership team, his committee chairman, and his troops.

Trying to get the Tea Party to compromise on anything is like trying to tell kids they can’t have cake for dinner and have to do their homework before they play video games. Speaker Ryan is going to hand his hands full and I wish him the best. Because for government to work, he’s going to have to be able to work with Democrats and then sell that to his troops. He’s going to have to tell his troops to vote to fund government agencies that the Tea Party believes doesn’t exist, at least in the U.S. Constitution. Which is like trying to sell broccoli for desert and doing your homework for fun to ten-year olds. 

Let's wish the new Speaker the best, he’s going to need it as well as the luck of the Wisconsin Irish and perhaps some Jack Daniels whisky as well.

USA Today: Qanta Ahmed: Islamism’s Double Pronged Assault on Liberal Democracy

Source: USA Today-

Source:The New Democrat

Islamism, from ISIS and other groups, is not just and assault on American and Western values, but its an assault on liberal values, whether it’s in America, Europe or in Asia. ISIS Islamists, want to destroy individual freedom, freedom of expression and individualism in general, all great liberal values and why I’m a Liberal. And replace it with their far-right view of religion and impose their values on everyone in the world that they can reach. Religious and cultural fascism where they decide how everyone should live and if you disobey in any way, or try to live like a human being an individual, you risk your life as a result.

The Far-Right’s version of Marxism which is religious theocratic fundamentalism. How today’s so-called Progressives, can ever say that what Islamists believe is just part of their culture, all I have to say to that is what Richard Dawkins said. Which is, “the hell with their culture.” When you take the side of a group like ISIS and other Islamists, you at the very least are showing sympathy for their perspective and worldview. A worldview where non-Islamist Muslims, women, gays and others, are considered to be second-class citizens who should be forced to live like prisoners in their tiny world.

You can’t have a liberal democratic world and a Islamist world when the Islamists are trying to destroy the Liberals. The Liberals and the West, have no choice but to fight back and destroy ISIS. This is not the Cold War where you had liberalism against Marxist Communism. Where both sides knowing they could destroy each other and the world agreeing not to in order to protect their self-interests. This is a war where the good guys have to win. Very similar to World War II when the West destroyed the Nazis. There’s no co-existence between the Islamists and Liberals. The Islamists have to be destroyed for the good of the West and for there to be any chance that someday Middle Easterners can have a peaceful home and region of their own. Where they’re not always dealing with extreme terrorism.

Paris last month, was the French 9/11 and France was already wide awake against ISIS and bombing them in Syria which is why ISIS hit them. So France is not some socialist pacifist pushover (to be kind) that doesn’t understand the use of force and that there are times that you have to be tough. They know what ISIS is about and what they need to do to destroy them and are already a great American ally in the War on Terror and now the War on ISIS as well. America, will probably have all of NATO, plus Iraq and the Syrian rebels, in the West’s fight to destroy ISIS now, thanks to Paris. Even though Paris was a hell of a price to pay for it, because of that insult on liberal values.

They don’t want another Paris attack happening to them and Britain doesn’t want a major attack in London, or one of their other great big cities and they’re now onboard to destroying ISIS as well and will provide airpower against ISIS as well. So what ISIS has done in Paris as horrible as an attack as that was, but they’ve woken up the West to the threat that they present against us and will take a hell of a beating as a result. What we’re going to see in this fight against ISIS is not neoconservatism and one country taking all the risks and collecting very little rewards for what they put up. But instead liberal internationalism, where a coalition of Western and Middle Eastern countries, take out ISIS together.
Source:The Blaze

USA Today: Dan Carney: 'Football is Foreign to American Values'

Source:USA Today-NBC SNF's Reporter Michele Tafoya, perhaps asking for her own turkey. 

Source:The Daily Review

I can’t think of another sport other than maybe baseball that represents America better than American football. Think about it, America represents almost everything that Americans love about America. Winners and losers, finale, hard work, teamwork, reward for success, physical play, toughness, violence, fair play, the game is designed for TV, for if no other reason that the field is a hundred yards long and roughly fifty yards wide. Not that different from an average TV set today. American football, is a working man’s game and even a working women’s game as well. It is a sport for hard-working middle class Americans which most of us are. Unlike golf and even soccer, which is about as yuppie and coffee-house a sport as there is anywhere in the world.

I can see why Socialists in and outside of America don’t even like football, or prefer soccer, or even a combination of those things. For the reasons why football represents America so well. With Socialists, the idea of winning and succeeding is somehow considered selfish if it is done on a an individual basis. With soccer, the idea is not to win and to even score, but to prevent your opponents from winning and scoring. Ties, are like kissing your sister, or eating a cheeseburger dry, or without fries. Somehow doesn’t seem satisfying in America. But for Socialists, “what’s wrong with a tie? Not about losing, but about how you play the game.”American football can’t be that bad if you got a billion people or more every year watching our Super Bowl. America only has three-hundred and twenty-million people and still growing.

Americans, are a people on to themselves. Other than maybe Canadians I think you’re going to have a hell of a time finding a nationality that is anything like us. We are the true rebels on this planet where we actually expect to get out of life what we put into it. Unlike most of the rest of the developed world where it is not about individual success, but about how everyone else is doing. With American sports and football is the perfect example of this, we expect one team to win and to know who had the better team at least for that one game. Because again we like winners and losers and whole concept is very foreign to especially Europeans who prefer soccer and collectivism. It’s easy to see why soccer is so loved in Europe and the rest of the developed world outside of America and Canada. But there isn’t another sport again other than maybe baseball that better represents America and Americans like American football.
Source:The Life of Baha

Mal Partisan: Our American Republic- The Federalists

Source:Mal Partisan- our American, Federal, Liberal Democratic Republic.

Source:The New Democrat 

"This episode of Our American Republic will discuss Federalism and the origins of our Federal System.  It remedied issues stemming from the Articles of Confederation by outlining unique roles and responsibilities for each part of the American Constitutional System.  How are we currently doing at preserving the original balance as conceived by the founders?" 

Source:Mal Partisan- the original United States of America.

From Mal Partisan

I believe the way the American federal liberal democratic republic was formed is based on what we were before the United States was created and what our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) wanted to escape from. 

The United Kingdom as it is today, but lot freer now than it was in the 1770s, was a unitarian, big government, authoritarian, monarchy. Britain, still is a unitarian, big government, monarchy, but now with a social democratic feel to it where governmental authority now rests with civilians and no longer the monarchy.

But in the 1770s the U.K. had an authoritarian London knows best about everything big, unitarian, government. With England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and the American Colonies, having very little if any say in their own state domestic affairs. 

The Founding American Liberals, wanted to move away from that top-down big government approach. And create a system where the states would have a lot more say in what goes on in their own states. Which is why the Federal American Republic was created to create a country where so much power was not in the hands of one central national authority. But where the states would have real authority over their own affairs.

Federalism, is not anti-government and even anti-federal government. The opposites are actually true. With federalism you get a set of rules and real governing guidelines for what the Federal Government can do, what it should and certain things that only it can do. Like defending the country, regulating interstate commerce, prosecuting interstate crimes, foreign policy, national infrastructure. But where the states and localities are responsible for what goes on in their own jurisdictions. Short of being under attack from a foreign power, or handling their own currency and things that only the Feds should be doing.

And even though federalism is not anti-government, it is anti-big government and anti-socialist. Because America will probably never have that top-down big centralized unitarian government, where so much power both economic and social, is centralized under the control of the national government. With so many so programs designed to take care of the people for themselves. Giving people the freedom not to responsible for themselves. Which is what is common in Britain and Scandinavia. 

What federalism says is that in a huge diverse country like America states should be responsible for what happens in their own states, because they are on the ground and know what's going on. The Feds can play a constructive role and assist, but not be there to run the program for each and every state. And the Federal system has worked very well for us most of our history.

The Washington Post: RFK Stadium- Past, Present, Future?

Source:The Washington Post- The Washington Football Factory!

Source:The Daily Review

I’m not an architect obviously, but one of the great things about RFK Stadium is that it wouldn’t have to be torn down. It is on a great property and piece of land and what the Redskins are flirting with right now is simply renovating it, or rebuilding it. But knocking out the skyboxes and press box level and the upper deck. Leaving in the lower bowl with those flexible seats that go up and down and then adding new decks of seats on top of the lower bowl and building a much larger stadium. Somewhere ninety-thousand seats or so, because Washington is big wealthy city in a huge wealthy market that loves their Redskins even when they’re losing. The future of the Redskins is not in Landover, or North Virginia, but in downtown Washington at the new RFK which would be right at where the current RFK is.

Worst case scenario, the city knocks down the current RFK, but rebuilds a new one on the same site, but that has about twice as many seats and perhaps a retractable roof on top and bring the Super Bowl to the nation’s capital for the first time ever. Which is long overdue considering how great a city market this is. Which the new RFK hosting college football and even bowl games, perhaps even bowl playoff games, perhaps the Maryland Terrapins would play Navy and Virginia every year. Maybe Penn State every other year. As well as a lot of other events during the NFL offseason to keep the money coming into this new huge stadium. That could become the best downtown big city football stadium in America and give Washington something New York doesn’t have. Which is a downtown NFL stadium to call its own.

I’m lucky being born and growing up watching football when I did. Because I remember all three Super Bowl Championships the Redskins won, plus the one they lost to the Los Angeles Raiders. So I know RFK Stadium very well and how much it has meant to this great franchise. Where it was probably the toughest place to win a road game at least in the NFC East in the 1980s, if not the NFC and NFL as well. Because Washington sports fans are so loyal to their winners and so crazy when the Redskins win to the point that opposing head coach has to ask the referee to tell the fans to shut up so his team can hear the plays and be able to talk to his team. That has been missing ever since the Redskins left RFK for Landover, but is something that the Redskins and should bring back. And be used to return the Redskins back to being an annual winner and championship contender. Which is where Washington expects the Redskins to be.

Brookings Institution: Molly E. Reynolds: 'Can Speaker Paul Ryan Keep His Promise of Amendment Opportunities For the Rank and File?'

Source:Brookings Institution- Left to right: (not necessarily ideologically) House Republican Conference Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

Source:The New Democrat

"Editor’s Note: With Paul Ryan’s rise to become Speaker of the House, he faces a set of immediate challenges that will help determine his legacy. Over the coming weeks, Molly Reynolds will profile some of the major issues and legislation Speaker Ryan will be forced to address. She will also assess both his performance on those matters and the consequences of the choices both he and the House of Representatives make.

The House returns to Washington this week with several important tasks left to complete before the end of the year—including legislation that funds discretionary federal programs through next September. As it does so, it must confront Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) promise, made as part of his ascent to the chamber’s top job, to open up the legislative process to more input from rank-and-file members.

In the eyes of Ryan and his allies, the transportation bill that passed just before the House’s Veterans Day recess represented a successful down payment on this promise. Certainly, the numbers are encouraging: the House devoted roughly 23 hours over three days to debating the bill and amendments to it. Of the 301 amendments that members proposed to the measure by submitting them to the House Rules Committee, 126 were made in order for consideration of the floor by the Rules panel. The amendments approved for floor debate, moreover, were a mix of proposals offered by Republicans (47), Democrats (41), and bi-partisan teams of House members (38). Roughly 68 percent of those amendments ultimately offered on the floor were successful (74 of 108). At the same time, however, the House’s experience with amendments on the highway bill reveals several dynamics that may make it difficult for Ryan to keep his promise to the House Freedom Caucus—just as former Speaker John Boehner struggled to keep his pledge to “restore regular order” upon assuming the Speaker’s chair in 2010.

To understand why a consistent (relatively) open amendment process may be difficult for Ryan to sustain, it’s helpful to review why the House majority leadership, via the Rules Committee, often limits the amendments that can be offered to a bill on the floor of the House. From a policy perspective, restrictive rules make it easier for the majority party to enact policies preferred by a majority of its members. Importantly, however, restrictive rules can also achieve political goals by preventing difficult votes on amendments that divide the majority party. Take, for example, the controversy over an amendment to this year’s Interior appropriations bill involving the sidebar issue of the display of the Confederate flag on federal property. Because the bill was being considered under an open rule, Democrats were able to offer an amendment banning the display of the flag in national cemeteries. A group of southern Republicans responded with their own amendment relaxing that prohibition, and rather than face a vote that would reveal divisions within the GOP on the issue, the leadership pulled the bill from the floor.

Speaker Ryan’s internally-divided caucus—ranging from the more moderate Tuesday Group to the House Freedom Caucus with its conservative policy demands—seems ripe for generating these kinds of confrontations. On the highway bill, however, he was lucky. The biggest potential source of intra-party strife—the Export-Import Bank—had been largely neutralized as an axis of conflict the week prior when, thanks to a rarely-used discharge petition effort, the House had approved a reauthorization of the Bank. The discharge petition meant that the Senate’s version of the highway bill wasn’t the first consideration of the Bank on the floor of the House. A slim majority of House Republicans were on record as supporting it, essentially settling the underlying question of whether to reauthorize the Bank. Thus, the House leadership could get away with allowing only 10 of 25 proposed amendments about the Bank on the floor, all of which ultimately failed. It’s not difficult to imagine, however, that on future legislation, Ryan will not be so lucky and will have to confront demands from different parts of his caucus for the right to offer potentially divisive floor amendments.

Beyond the policy and political benefits of restrictive rules, they can also speed up the legislative process. Sometimes, this effort to move things along is explicit, such as when a rule waives a requirement that the House wait multiple days before considering a certain kind of measure, such as a compromise version of a bill produced by a House-Senate conference committee (which ordinarily must lie over for three days). In other cases, however, the House simply does not have—or want to have—the time to devote multiple days to considering amendments on a single bill. As political scientists Scott Adler and John Wilkerson have argued, congressional floor time is a scarce resource, and it is not always in the interest of the majority party leadership to expend that resource on considering 100+ amendments.

Last December, for example, the House had to pass a spending measure—the so-called ‘Cromnibus’—in order to avoid a partial government shutdown. Operating under tight deadline, the House Rules Committee decided to prohibit floor amendments on the measure. On one hand, doing so protected the bill from controversial amendments involving funding for implementing President Obama’s executive action on immigration that could have derailed the bill. At the same time, the closed rule also prevented some popular, bipartisan amendments—such as one involving NSA surveillance—from being considered. Closing off the amendment process on the Cromnibus served two important time management goals. First, it increased the chances the measure would clear in time to keep the government open. Second, it also ensured that members of Congress could follow their previously-set schedule and head home for the holidays on time. Otherwise, argued then-Speaker John Boehner, “if we don’t get finished today, we’re going to be here until Christmas.” Given that the House has been in session for fewer days in recent years and is scheduled to conduct business for only 111 days next year, this conflict between scheduling pressures and the demand for an open amendment process isn’t likely to get better in the near future. As former Representative Tom Davis (R-VA) put it in a recent interview, “if you open up the process…you’re going to be here till midnight, you’re going to be here for six days a week…You kind of have to let members understand what the tradeoffs are.”

A more open amending process is not the only reform Speaker Ryan has promised as part of his pledge to “make some changes, starting with how the House does business.” Others, such as the proposed reforms to the Steering Committee (the Republican intra-party panel responsible for making committee assignments) may be easier to implement and maintain. On the amendment front, however, we should be careful not to draw too many conclusions from his early success. More difficult challenges to his promises are almost certain to come." 

From Brookings

Warning! This piece may come off as inside Congress and the beltway wonky for all of you non-political junkies who have better things to do than follow Washington politics. Especially if you’re currently sober.

Generally speaking except when I’m trying to get somewhere, I love living just outside of Washington in Bethesda, Maryland. I’ve lived here my whole live and wouldn’t live somewhere else if someone paid me to leave. But this is probably why I’m such a political junky to the point where I can actually name all one-hundred U.S. Senators and most of the key U.S. Representatives. Even when a lot of Americans couldn’t name their own Senators and Representative even if you spotted them the last names. I love Congress and love following Congress especially the Senate, but the House is fascinating as well. Which is why I’m writing a piece on how to reform the House of Representatives.

One thing that Speaker Paul Ryan and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi can agree on for the remainder of this Congress and future Congress’s, is that the House is broken. Both parties have continually broken into it (pun intended) and have almost destroyed it. And a big part of why it’s so partisan has to do with how the majority treats the minority. 

House Democrats, didn’t ask for much if any input from House Republicans when they were in charge. And continually wrote bills in the House Democratic Leadership room. Bypassing even their own committee chairman, let alone the Republican Leadership. So House Republican couldn’t even attempt to amend bills. As well as Moderate Democratic members who were actually interested in getting reelected and didn’t want to vote for something that could hurt them at home.

House Republicans, in the last two Congress’s under Speaker Boehner, have been a little better and have at least allowed for bills to come out of committee and have some amendment votes on bills. Not saying the House should become the Senate and adopt some super majority requirement for bills to get passed. But if I’m Speaker of the House, (that idea scares me more than you) I would want members of my caucus to weigh in on bills. Especially my committee chairman, so my members feels they have a real role in how the House works. But also if I need their votes on controversial legislation, they can say back home that they offered their amendments, but didn’t have the votes for them. And had to vote for the next best thing. Or they can say they made the bills better, because their amendments passed.

You also want the minority to not only be able to offer amendments to bill in committee and mark bills up in committee and not just send them to floor without even a hearing. Especially on the minority leadership to put pressure on them to offer ideas and alternatives. So you could say, “you don’t like what we’re doing, what would you do instead?” Put some responsibility on them to offer their own ideas and vision. Which would also give you opportunities to hit them back and not always be on defense when the House is debating bills on the floor. And when reelection season comes, you’ll have an opportunity to explain why their agenda isn’t good and why they shouldn’t be back in the majority.

Again not saying the House should become the Senate with unlimited debate short of 3-5 majority and all of that. With all the hot air that comes out of Senate filibusters. (Who needs summer in Washington when you have the Senate filibuster?) But in a couple of areas where the House should become like the Senate has to do with how committees operate and bills are written. All major legislation should go through committees. Where the chairman write bills along with their members and when the chairman and ranking members don’t agree on what the final bill should be they can both write their own relevant bill to whatever the issue that they’re considering is. And then let the rank in file decide who has the better bill. And offer their own amendments as well.

The House floor should work the same way. Where the Majority Leader brings up bills that have been passed out of committee and then when the Minority Leader and the minority caucus doesn’t like the majority bill and they haven’t reached a compromise on what the bill should be, the Minority Leader or their designee, should be able to offer a substitute to the majority bill. When the two-party leaders disagree. And again let the members decide who has the better bill. And not just do this in this Congress, but make these rule changes permanent so both parties whether they’re in the majority, or minority can have a stake in the game. And the ability to legislate and offer their own ideas.

Speaker Paul Ryan, who ideologically I don’t agree with him on much other than how government should help the poor and empower them to take control over their own lives, I believe truly believes in the notion that the U.S. House should be a battle place of ideas. A competition where both Democrats and Republicans can offer their own visions for the country and then let the country decide who has the better vision. And not just on the campaign trail, but on the House floor and in committee as well. Probably more than even Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who rarely if ever allowed for amendments to bills except when they were bipartisan. A reform approach like this would make the House work better, because now they would be debating ideas and visions. Instead of who wants to destroy America first. And the country would better off as a result.

The Onion: 'Socialism Vs. Capitalism'

Source: The Daily Review Plus- Capitalism & socialism.

Source:The Daily Review

Just to be serious for a minute or so and risk losing viewers who are expecting nothing but laughs from me and for me to be an asshole:

Socialism vs capitalism, is not a real debate. Socialism, is a broad collectivist political philosophy. Capitalism, is an individualist economic system that every developed country in the world has a version of including social democracies. Britain, France, Denmark, Sweden, go down the line. The amount of major countries in the world that don’t have a capitalist system, you can now count on one hand and perhaps not need a second finger. Just chop off the other four, or save yourself from some extreme pain and point out North Korea and perhaps Syria. While you hold your other fingers down. This should really be capitalism vs Marxism, or capitalism, vs Communism.

So let’s try it this way and compare democratic socialism and use perhaps Bernie Sanders as the elected leader and not Marxist dictator. Versus what I at least call Randism, that I personally named after Ayn Rand and name Ayn their leader. You should’ve seen the ceremony, because it was beautiful. No one forced Ayn to show up, because she’s an objectivist and showed up voluntarily.

You have Democratic Socialists who say that the state or society as a whole is the most important thing. And because of that you can’t let people to be free and as individualist as they want. Because some people are just better and more productive than others, which will make the poor and ignorant look even worst and hurt their self-esteem.

Socialists  say what we should do is have a big central state and not even have states and localities with much power over their own affairs either. Because if they’re free to do well than others will be free to struggle. And one part of country will be doing very well, because they know how to educate, how to build, how to regulate, how to tax and everything else. While other parts of the country will have central planners who don’t do much else than planning screw ups. And their people will suffer as a result. So you need a big central state to run things from government central to take care of the nation.

And then you have Randian’s or Libertarians, or Objectivists. Who say, “what’s mine is all mine! And anything that government take is a form of theft! And any type of regulation is a form of imprisonment.” So in a Randian system, government doesn’t tax or regulate. Just arrests criminals and imprisons them. (I guess after a fair trial) And protects the country when it’s under attack. How they even pay for that? Your guess is as good as mine. They would say tariffs, but Randian’s also believe in free trade and part of free trade is low tariffs. In a Randian system, instead of government trying to do practically everything for everybody, short of running business’s, government does practically nothing for no one. Except when a someone becomes a victim of a predator.

So you have Democratic Socialists who say that the collective is more important than the individual. They say you can’t have people living for themselves and showing everybody how much smarter, more productive and cooler they are than Joe and Jane Average, as well as Tom and Mary Below Average, and John and Susan Moron. They say what instead society should do ( in a Democratic Socialist’s mind ) is say that at the very least Bob and Anne Rich, should take care of the Average’s, the Below Average’s and the Moron’s, because they can afford to. That if you encourage people to become independent of the state as far as trying to succeed financially, then that is exactly what will happen. So you need big government to step in and prevent that from happening so everyone is taken care of.

With the Randian’s saying, “of course we want to be free on their own! And is someone falls down, people especially Bob and Anne Rich and other Rich’s, will step in and take care of the people who fall on hard times.’

Democratic socialism, is not the ultimate of collectivist economic systems. But only Marxism beats it when it comes to collectivism. Randism, is not the most individualist of economic systems, but anarchism beats it. But Democratic socialism and Randism, are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum. Democratic socialism, has at least one thing on Randism, it has been tried and still in use in the world with success. Randism, well there might be more Randians than Marxists right now, but a squirrel is bigger than a mouse, so what. I’m not a fan of either, but they’re both fascinating to follow.

The Onion: Nathan Eckert- 'The Iraq War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region & Set Off a Global Shockwave of Anti-Americanism'

Source: This photo was originally posted by The Onion- The Daily Review- The Onion, debating the War in Iraq.

Source:The Daily Review

“George W. Bush may think that a war against Iraq is the solution to our problems, but the reality is, it will only serve to create far more.”

From The Onion

"Bill Maher rips all of those bad predictions from "think tanks" and tells them they can't call themselves think tanks if they are stupid. "To those of you who dreamed up the Iraq conflict, and predicted we'd be greeted as liberators,  and that we wouldn't need a lot of troops, and that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, the WMDs would be found, looting wasn't problematic, that the insurgency was ib its last throws, and that the whole bloody mess wouldn't turn into a civil war...

...YOU HAVE TO STOP MAKING PREDICTIONS!!!"

Richard Perle thought we could win Iraq with 40,000 troops.

Paul Wolfowitz predicted in 2003 that within a year the grateful people of Baghdad would name some grand square in their fine city after President Bush."

From Renegade Reposter

Source:Renegade Reposter- Bill Maher, on The War in Iraq.

What America did to Iraq in the spring of 2003 is what Joe did to Tom in my hypothetical. We invaded their territory and killed millions of Iraqi’s simply because they had an evil government led by an evil dictator and the Bush Administration thought (if you want to call that thinking) the price of losing innocent Iraqi lives was worth eliminating an evil dictator. Weapons of mass destruction? Well not in Iraq as it turns out, because the United Nations as well as the U.S. weapons inspectors did their jobs in the late 1990s and early 2000s and had Saddam’s weapons removed. Remember, the Iraqi Military didn’t even put up a fight against the American forces during the invasion. They all rolled over, not to get their bellies rubbed like my cat does everyday, but to surrender and not be killed.

What was all this for again? Well originally if you believe all the propaganda from the Bush Administration in 2002, it was about preventing Iraq from becoming a nuclear power and to get rid of their other WMD. Chemical weapons that Moammar Gadhafi still had and used against his own people in the Libyan Civil War of 2010-11. But Saddam no longer had weapons like that to use against Americans or Iraqis. And the worst thing about this colossal disaster, 10 on the Richter scale when it comes to the world championship of mistakes, is that the weapons inspectors were telling the Bush Administration that Saddam not only had zero nuclear weapons, but they couldn’t find other WMD as well. WMD, was an excuse for invading Tom’s home and preventing Tom from hurting and killing other innocent people in the future. But what the Bush’s really wanted to do was to eliminate Saddam and at all costs.

Seriously, who are the brainiacs who dreamed up the Iraq War? And how many weeks straight were they up drinking nothing but Red Bull and Starbucks frappuccinos developing this grand scheme of imposing liberal democracy on a society that still believed that women should always cover their faces in public and wear nothing but long black dresses and long black suits so no one can discover that they are women. As well as a country that was actually scared of freedom like an inmate whose been in prison since he was 18 and now finally getting out in his sixties being told he now has to take care of himself. I mean you don’t have to be a foreign policy expert to see flaws in this grand strategy that has more holes in it than a Chevy Caprice that is parked in Watts or Compton, California.

Iraq, is even a unique country even for Arabia and the broader Middle East. Different Arab population, as well as a country that has other major ethnic groups in it and several different religious groups. A country the size of California in the heart of the Middle East. That pre-Iraq War the only form of government they knew was life in prison. So what the Iraq War did was pardon all of these innocent prisoners who’ve all been in prison for 40-60 years and tell them, “you’re free to go and good luck to you. You’re certainly going to need it! Oh by the way, that free society we were talking about, doesn’t exist! Ha, ha! Fooled you! Yeah, no more military, or law enforcement to deal with, Just murderous thugs who kill people for the hell of it. Wish you best!”


Nathan Eckert, (assuming that is his real name. You never know with The Onion.) was damn right about the consequences of the Iraq War in the early days of it in 2003. But if you’re a Neoconservative, you only think in terms, “they are either with us, or against us! They love, or hate America.” So of course a Neoconservative wouldn’t listen to this, because in their peanut brain size mind they don’t believe in intelligence and evidence. Just neoconservative political fundamentalism. That says, “trust us, it will all work out in the end! Don’t trust the evidence, because in your heart you know we’re right!” That is not thinking, because thinking requires evidence. The Iraq War was simply based on blind faith that since the supporters of this war believed they were on the right side of history and were doing the right thing, that is all they needed. And it has been multiple trillion-dollar mistake. And has cost Iraq the country we were supposed to save, millions of their own lives.

Looking back at the Iraq War from over a twelve-year perspective it reminds me of someone who knows a guy down the street, who knows this man has beaten up a lot f people and at the least is suspected of murdering some people in his home. So lets say this guy Joe, decides to invade this bad guy’s home and beats let’s say Tom up and holds him hostage there at Tom’s own home until a more suitable homeowner can be installed to live there and bring justice to Tom.

And even though Tom’s friends come over to try to save Tom and Joe takes them out as well and in the process perhaps Tom’s wife and kids are seriously hurt if not killed in the process for being there and Joe thinking they are in the way of bringing justice to Tom. When innocent people are killed in war they are called innocent bystanders. And a cost of war.

What America did to Iraq in the spring of 2003 is what Joe did to Tom in my hypothetical. We invaded their territory and killed millions of Iraqi’s simply because they had an evil government led by an evil dictator. And the Bush Administration thought (if you want to call that thinking) the price of losing innocent Iraqi lives was worth eliminating an evil dictator.

Weapons of mass destruction? Well not in Iraq as it turns out, because the United Nations as well as the U.S. weapons inspectors did their jobs in the late 1990s and early 2000s and had Saddam’s weapons removed. Remember, the Iraqi Military didn’t even put up a fight against the American forces during the invasion. They all rolled over, not to get their bellies rubbed like my cat does everyday, but to surrender and not be killed.

What was all this for again? Well originally if you believe all the propaganda from the Bush Administration in 2002, it was about preventing Iraq from becoming a nuclear power and to get rid of their other WMD. Chemical weapons that Moammar Gadhafi still had and used against his own people in the Libyan Civil War of 2010-11.

But Saddam no longer had weapons like that to use against Americans or Iraqis. And the worst thing about this colossal disaster, (10 on the Richter scale when it comes to the world championship of mistakes) is that the weapons inspectors were telling the Bush Administration that Saddam not only had zero nuclear weapons, but they couldn’t find other WMD as well.

WMD, was an excuse for invading Tom’s home and preventing Tom from hurting and killing other innocent people in the future. But what the Bush’s really wanted to do was to eliminate Saddam and at all costs.

Seriously, who are the brainiacs who dreamed up the Iraq War? And how many weeks straight were they up drinking nothing but Red Bull and Starbucks Frappuccino’s developing this grand scheme of imposing liberal democracy on a society that still believed that women should always cover their faces in public and wear nothing but long black dresses and long black suits so no one can discover that they are women.

As well as a country that was actually scared of freedom like an inmate whose been in prison since he was 18 and now finally getting out in his sixties being told he now has to take care of himself. I mean you don’t have to be a foreign policy expert to see flaws in this grand strategy that has more holes in it than a Chevy Caprice that is parked in Watts or Compton, California.

Iraq, is even a unique country even for Arabia and the broader Middle East. Different Arab population, as well as a country that has other major ethnic groups in it and several different religious groups.

A country the size of California in the heart of the Middle East. That pre-Iraq War the only form of government they knew was life in prison. So what the Iraq War did was pardon all of these innocent prisoners who’ve all been in prison for 40-60 years and tell them: “you’re free to go and good luck to you. You’re certainly going to need it! Oh by the way, that free society we were talking about, doesn’t exist! Ha, ha! Fooled you! Yeah, no more military, or law enforcement to deal with, Just murderous thugs who kill people for the hell of it. Wish you best!”

Nathan Eckert, (assuming that is his real name. You never know with The Onion.) was damn right about the consequences of the Iraq War in the early days of it in 2003. But if you’re a Neoconservative, you only think in terms: “they are either with us, or against us! They love, or hate America.” So of course a Neoconservative wouldn’t listen to this, because in their peanut brain size mind they don’t believe in intelligence and evidence. Just neoconservative political fundamentalism.

Neoconservatives believe: “trust us, it will all work out in the end! Don’t trust the evidence, because in your heart you know we’re right!” That is not thinking, because thinking requires evidence.

The Iraq War was simply based on blind faith that since the supporters of this war believed they were on the right side of history and were doing the right thing, that is all they needed. And it has been multiple trillion-dollar mistake. And has cost Iraq the country we were supposed to save, millions of their own lives.