The New Democrat Online

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Thames TV: Diana Dors on The Des O'Connor Show in 1984



Diana Dors is so freakin adorable and then throw in the fact that she’s so funny as well. Which I think gives you a great idea of how good of an actress she really was. She was playing comedian on this show and doing it without a script. Larry Grayson was a British comedian and I imagine a pretty good at that, even though I’m not that familiar with him. And they obviously knew each other very well. But he’s a comedian, his show is supposed to be funny similar to The Dick Cavett Show and he brings Diana on and she plays the role of comedian. She wasn’t playing straight women lets say to Grayson’s funny man and he wasn’t playing the straight man on this show either. They were both very funny and talking about things they’ve worked on and what they have in common. And the chemistry between them was great and it made a for a funny interview. If you want to call it an interview.


Sunday, January 25, 2015

Phil Stellar: The Bob Hope Show- Diana Dors in 1956


Baby Di & Bob-
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Diana Dors showing her versatility as a comedian on The Bob Hope Show. Going toe to toe with one of the top lets says one-percent of comedians of all-time. I guess Bob is living out of his fantasies, perhaps drunk fantasies in having Diana Dors a goddess sent down from heaven as his partner and even wife on his show. Making every man in America, that is every man with a pair of eyes and vision and I’m sure some blind men as well jealous of him. Diana Dors certainly preferred Britain over America and her lovely adorable English accent is an example of that. And used America for her work and this is where she became famous. So coming to America was perhaps not something she loved doing, but her coming over here was gift down from heaven for millions of Americans.




Saturday, January 24, 2015

Captain Bijou: Video: The Long Haul 1957, A Look at Organized Crime in The Trucking Industry

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Take Diana Dors who is a hot sexy baby-face goddess, perhaps the cutest Hollywood goddess of all-time and The Long Haul is still a very good movie. Because it has a very good cast and it gives you a very good look at not just organized crime, but organized crime in the trucking industry, but also organized crime in Britain over in England. And Diana does a great job in this movie as well. The first Princess Diana in Britain, at least as far as I’m concern.

Victor Mature plays a U.S. Army Sergeant stationed over in post-World War II Britain in England. He’s already married with a son over there to an English women. Harry wants to go home to America, but his English wife doesn’t. So Harry stays, but also needs a job in England and finds one as a truck driver. Linda played by Diana is the girlfriend of an English mobster who owns a trucking company. Harry gets a straight job as a truck driver and meets Linda who wants to leave her mobster boyfriend and takes her away. But the mobster’s gang just also happens to jack Harry’s truck on his first night.

That is how this movie really starts where Harry now needs a job to support his English wife and son, but can only get a job with this English gang in the trucking industry. He doesn’t want to do it. Linda wants to escape Joe played by Patrick Allen, her mobster boyfriend and start a life with Harry. Harry is in between starting a new affair with Linda and staying with his wife because of his son and he still loves his wife. But he also needs a job and that is where this job starts moving real fast. Because now Joe is on the run for murdering his top deputy. And takes Linda with him and Harry helps him get away from the law.

This is not a great movie. I would give it an 8.5 I guess, but certainly a very good movie that you don’t need Diana Dors in it to make it interesting. But a women like that can make a bad movie look good because of how great she is and how she looks. And then you throw in the plot and the movie has an excellent cast with Diana Dors, Victor Mature, Patrick Allen and others. The movie takes place in post-World War II England where people there are trying to rebuild their lives and you have a very good movie.



Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Foreign Affairs: Opinion: Anton Barbashin: The Eurasian Economic Union Is An Illusion

Foreign Affairs: Opinion: Anton Barbashin: The Eurasian Economic Union Is an Illusion

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Eurasia lets call it, the area east of the European Union with the first Slavic states and former Soviet republics, all the way over to the Arab states, will never be very successful economically as long as Russia is run by someone who simply wants to put the Soviet Union back together. Or bring back all of those republics back to Russia. And not so much interested in what is in the best interest of the people in these countries. Because decisions will always be made on how to obtain greater power and territory. And not what is in the best interest of the economies in these Slavic countries.

Russia will always be a potentially great country and new superpower, with its great and educated population, land mass, and natural resources and not actually returning to the world again as a superpower, but this time economically to go along with militarily and diplomatically, as long as Vladimir Putin is running the government there. Whether he has the official title as Russian Federation President or not. As long as Vlad is interested in obtaining more power and territory for Russia and not developing the economy so it reaches most if not all the Russian people, Russia will remain a developing power, if not country all together.

The Onion: John Elway Casually Mentions To Peyton Manning How Great it Was Going Out on Top

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

The only reason why Pete Rose is not in the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame and he would’ve gone in I believe 1992 which I believe would’ve been is first year of eligibility, but the only reason he’s not there has to do with his gambling on Major League Baseball games. Which he gambled on even as manager of the Cincinnati Reds and even betted on Reds games. Pete being out of the Hall of Fame has nothing to do with his playing career and nothing to do with his playing career is keeping him out of the Hall of Fame.

I could understand banning Pete from ever being a MLB manager, coach or executive for life. Because betting on your own team’s games is a pretty bad offense. Especially if you are betting that they lose and have a say in the outcome of their games. But to keep him out of the Hall of Fame in general, when he’s arguably the best all around player of his era and generation and we are talking about a career that covers twenty-four seasons from 1963-86, makes no sense from a Hall of Fame perspective.

Keeping Pete out of the Hall of Fame also does more damage to Reds fans and the Cincinnati Reds organization that Pete. Because of all the respect and luster that comes from not just seeing one of your own players in the Hall of Fame, but having that person in the Hall of Fame. “That player was not just a great player, but he played for us and we won a lot of games with him and he’s in the Hall of Fame as one of us”. Things that the Reds organization and the Reds fans can’t say right now because they are denied of seeing Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame.

We are not talking about whether Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame as a manager or even as a human being. He would never make it to the Hall of Fame based on that criteria. We are talking about Pete Rose the player and based on his playing career and because of the facts that he’s the best player who’s been retired for at least five years from playing, not in the Hall of Fame. And of course what he did as a player would’ve put him in the Hall of Fame over twenty-years ago. Pete Rose should definitely be in the Hall of Fame. Just don’t allow him to manage or be an executive.



Monday, January 19, 2015

Constitution Daily: Constitution Check: Lyle Denniston: Is The First Amendment on The Side of a Pro Football Team’s Name?

Redskins vs Giants
Constitution Daily: Constitution Check: Lyle Denniston: Is The First Amendment on The Side of a Pro Football Team’s Name?

I’ve sort of gone out of my way to avoid getting into this debate because I quite frankly find it stupid. It’s now 2014 and Americans and the U.S. Government has just discovered that the Redskins is a racist name. Even though the franchise has been around since what, 1933 or 32. Give me a break, if Redskins was a racist name, which is what Nigger would be for people of African descent, that it would’ve been thrown out a long time ago. Saying the Redskins is a racist name, is like calling Bill Maher towards Muslims because he criticizes Islam, even though Muslim is not a race, but Muslims are followers of the Islāmic religion. It’s not even worth considering.

But that is just the practical argument. How about this little thing called the First Amendment that protects all Americans right to free speech and allows for people to call themselves essentially whatever the hell they want to and that includes organizations. But even if you say the federal trademark law about profiting from names that some Americans may tend to find offensive, again where was this 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 years ago. Why is the name Redskins offensive in 2012-13 when this controversy started and not again decades ago. This is really nothing more than pop culture correctness at its worst.

The Redskins are now getting the Bill Maher treatment from the Far-Left and being labeled as racists. Not by Bill Maher who I imagine is on the side of the Redskins here for First Amendment protections. But a man who just back in September was considered a hero on the Far-Left, is now considered to be a “White Devil” or something. But if you put all of this aside, the fact that Congress is not very good at writing laws and people wonder why they are so unpopular, because even when they do pass laws, they don’t write them very well, but lets the trademark law is constitutional for a second. The fact that they didn’t define what is racially offensive in a name, means the Redskins at the very least will probably, win on a technicality.


The New Republic: Opinion: Kevin Mahnken: President Pro Tempore Orrin Hatch and Need For Succession Reform

The New Republic: Opinion: Kevin Mahnken: President Pro Tempore Orrin Hatch and The Need For Succession Reform 

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Here’s a post that perhaps only political, Constitution and American history junkies would be interested. I just happen to be all three, so I’m more than qualified to be interested in this. But here’s something that I actually agree with a New Socialist, I mean New Republic author on and that is the need to reform U.S. Senate rules and perhaps even the U.S. Constitution itself. That is if the Senate simply couldn’t reform the President Pro Tempore position itself. And it might be able to since under the Constitution Congress writes its own rules. But I’m not a lawyer.

But what I would like to see done in the Senate and I’ll explain why assuming this could be done by the U.S. Senate laterally, is to add an amendment to the Pro Tempore position. The amendment would say that the majority party decides who the Pro Tempore is and that person doesn’t have to the longest Senator in the majority party. Actually I would go further than that and say the Pro Tempore or Leader of the Senate, whatever the title of the position is who would be the first ranking member of the Senate, would be an at-large seat and member. Mot elected by a state, but by the American people themselves, or at the very least the Senate majority members. But that is for a future post.

What I would do is essentially male the Pro Tempore or Leader of the Senate like the Speaker of the House for the Senate. The lead presiding officer, but also the person who appoints committee chairman, decides what bills come to the floor and up for a vote. And have that person in charge of the Senate floor. Because if we are going to even have this position, then it shouldn’t be signed to someone simply because they are the oldest or have been in the Senate the longest. If the Pro Tempore should ever become President because something happens to the President, Vice President and Speaker, that person should be ready to be President and healthy enough for the job.

I doubt Orrin Hatch ever wants to be President of the United States, at least at this point, he did run in 2000. He’s someone who I respect as a Liberal, even though he’s pretty right-wing and I’m not taking this position because he is currently the Pro Tempore. But just to point out that someone shouldn’t be the chief presiding officer of the Senate with real responsibilities, that is when the Vice President is not up at Congress and third inline for the presidency, just because they are in their late seventies or eighties and have been in the Senate for a long time.


Sunday, January 18, 2015

Sleaze-O-Rama: Video: Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? 1957, A Hollywood Goddess Looking to Beef Up Her Image


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Jayne Mansfield plays Rita Marlowe in Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter and I believe and have heard that Marlowe was one of the names that Jayne considered changing her last name to after arriving in Hollywood. But instead settled for Mansfield the last name of her first ex-husband. But anyway Rita Marlowe is a star actress and Hollywood goddess who goes to New York, because she wants to improve her image. New York is the advertising capital at least of America, so not a better city to choose from.

Tony Randall plays Rock Hunter a talented and semi-successful advertiser, who hasn’t hit it big yet in the business. The firm he works for is looking for a big account that would bring them a lot of money and future clients. Rock is looking for the that one big account that would jumpstart his career and take him to the top. It turns out that Rita and Rock are perfect for each other, because they both have what the other needs. Rita would be that account that would Rock’s firm needs. And Rock has what Rita needs which is an intelligent successful professional man who would make her look good.

That is what Rock Hunter is really about. Rita and Rock make a deal with each other and do favors for each other. Rita endorses products that Rock is trying to promote for his firm like perfume. Rock pretends to be Rita’s boyfriend and appear in public with her as a couple so she can be taken more seriously in Hollywood. This movie is also about people believing that they are obligated to be things that they don’t want to be and instead find ways to do things that they want to do instead.

This is not a great movie, but it is a very funny movie with a good message. That people don’t have to be the way that others be they should be and work in professions that others believe they should. That people can be themselves and do what makes them happy. And have to worry about their image so much. Tony Randall as usual in this movie is very funny and the same thing with Jayne Mansfield. Who is her usual adorable baby girl funny self, with all her funny and adorable mannerisms.



Saturday, January 17, 2015

Hallmark Channel: Video: The Alfred Hitchcock Hour: Hangover, 1962

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

A chance to see Jayne Mansfield with short hair. Don’t worry, she’s still baby-face adorable and hot with short hair. Tony Randall plays a talented, but alcoholic advertiser who’s drinking has gone too far to the point that it costs him his job, which is a very good job and his wife. And as well as his memory where he doesn’t remember the night before. Where he gets kicked out of a bar, screws up his presentation at work for one of his clients and wife walks out on him. He also forgets about an affair he had with Marion played by Jayne Mansfield.

He actually shows up at work the next morning thinking everything is normal and that nothing incredible happened the night before. He doesn’t even remember being fired and is wondering what Marion is doing at his home the next morning. He shows up to work locked out of his office where they tell him again that he was fired. And essentially spends the rest of the day trying to figure out what happened the day before.

As Alfred Hitchcock said on this show himself, this was about showing people the dangers of alcoholism, which I’m even surprised that term was even around in the early 1960s. And would assume that people who were alcoholics were considered to be mentally weak and not people with disease that needed serious treatment. But alcoholism causes Hadley Purvis played by Tony Randall his job and his wife and he loses his temper and takes it out on Marion.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Keith Hughes: Video: Cuba Explained: Ending the Embargo


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

I’m not saying ending the Cuban trade embargo unconditionally is a good idea and sure as hell hope that is not what President Obama did. I’m in favor of ending the embargo conditionally. That any American trade and business that goes into Cuba goes to the Cuban economy and the Cuban people. That the Cuban Government doesn’t tax most of it away, or all of it way to boost up their communist regime. But as long as Cubans see, feel and get the benefits of American trade in their country and have all the access to Cuban resources like hotels and everything else as American tourists, than this is something we should definitely be doing.

Cuba is not a threat in any way to America. Economically, militarily in no way whatsoever. If anything Venezuela is a bigger threat to America than Cuba, because they have a larger military, more economic resources, better ties to other authoritarian regimes who don’t like America and everything else and yet we trade with Venezuela. We are the only at least developed country in the Western world that doesn’t trade with Cuba and that only hurts the American economy and American business’s. Cuba gets that economic activity back and then some from Europe, South America and Asia.

Cuba is moving in a better if not positive direction now under Raul Castro now the President of the Communist State. They have opened up their economy to private enterprise and they now have Cuban business people who work or own for private business’s and other companies. They’ve also lessened restrictions as it relates to personal freedom and allowing Cubans to have more access of their own country. You don’t open up countries by ignoring them. We are seeing that with China and saw that with Russia when they were under Soviet control. You open up countries through engagement and encouraging the people in those countries to take control of their own country.

David Lindholm: The Girl Can't Help it 1956- About a Star Who Doesn't Want it All


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

If you are familiar with Jayne Mansfield in real-life and you are familiar with this movie, you know that Jayne essentially plays herself in this movie. Except for one key factor, Jayne plays a women who doesn’t want to be a star, an entertainer in this movie. The real Jaynes Mansfield only wanted to be a star and move to Hollywood and make it big in the entertainment business as an actress, singer and perhaps even comedian, she could do it all. At least when she was sober, but in this movie she plays someone who essentially just wants to be a good housewife to the man she loves and take care of their children.

Her boyfriend played by Edmund O’Brien has completely different ideas for Jerri Jordan played by Jayne Mansfield. He plays an entertainment mogul who has produced big hits in the past and made a lot of money, but hasn’t produced one lately and is sort of looking for a big comeback. Fats Murdoch played by O’Brien, also has other business connections, including being involved in organized crime and has even done time in prison. Which is one of the reasons why his career in the entertainment business is in, shall we say recession where he hasn’t been active lately.

Murdoch wants to marry Jerri, but the problem is she isn’t known yet and is worried that marrying someone who is unknown and perhaps seen as a nobody could hurt his image. He knows that she is physically a goddess, a hot baby-face and perhaps even baby girl voiced goddess, with an incredible body is a star in waiting and just needs someone to lead her in the right direction and to get noticed. That is where Tom Miller comes in played by Tom Ewell, whose career is also in a bit of a slump. But who is a talented agent and scout who has made entertainers stars in the past, but hasn’t done anything lately.

Murdoch hires Miller to make Jerri Jordan a star. To show her around town and to get people in the entertainment business to see and know her and to lead her to people who can get her in the entertainment business and start a career for herself. The problem is Jerri doesn’t want to be a star and Miller knows that, but also knows that his gangster boss Murdoch won’t be satisfied with that. Miller is scared of Murdoch and doesn’t want to be cut out or eliminated, but doesn’t want to force Jerri to do something that she doesn’t want to do. Murdoch also has other gangsters after him that want him killed. And Miller and Murdoch help each other with each other’s problems.

The Girl Can’t Help it is certainly not a great movie. Very funny, at times sure and pretty entertaining, but Jayne Mansfield like in real-life is so overwhelmingly adorable, hot and sexy in this movie, that she makes the movie worth watching on her own. She’s also very funny in this movie like she is in most of her movies and Edmund O’Brien and Tom Ewell are very good and funny in this movie as well. This movie also features Julie London, who plays one of Miller’s former clients who became a big star, but dumped him after they get involved. So this is a pretty good movie and Jerry Jordan helps Miller get over Julie London who plays herself in the movie.



Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Keith Hughes: Video: What is a Liberal?


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Keith Hughes explained what is a Liberal in basically the first minute of this video and he even said that we all are a Liberal at least in some way. Because we all believe in liberty, equality, freedom, the ability to live our own lives. Those are the things that Liberals believe in and why I’m a Liberal and what liberalism is actually about. And if you want to call me a Classical Liberal, fine but I’m a Liberal because that is what Liberals believe in.

But if you listen to the stereotypes of what Liberals are and what liberalism is about, whether it comes from hyper-partisan right-wingers, the media and people on the Far-Left who have the balls to call themselves Liberals, you would think that liberalism is a democratic form of statism, or just statism in general, but under a different name. That the job of government is not to make sure that everyone can live in freedom, but that everyone is taken care of. That the job of government is to take care of people and even protect them from themselves, both from an economic and personal perspective.

The stereotypes of today’s Liberals is that we are essentially statists and perhaps even Neo-Communists. That individual freedom shouldn’t be the goal, but that what we want is a society where everyone is take care of. Where no one is poor and where no one is too rich, especially when others are struggling. Where no one is able to, or is making bad decisions with their own lives that society as a whole has to pay for.

So a statist today if they are democrats, are essentially Socialists or Social Democrats when it comes to economic policy. A huge welfare state mixed in with private enterprise to finance a welfare state, but are paternalists when it comes to personal issues as well. So people don’t make mistakes with their own lives that again society as a whole has to pay for. That it is the job of government to take care of people both from an economic and personal point of view.

I mention these things, because that is what so many Americans tend to believe when they think of Liberals and liberalism. People who statists essentially, both welfare statists when it comes to the economy and nanny statists when it comes to personal issues. But that is the opposite of what Liberals are and what liberalism is about. Liberals aren’t anti-state, meaning anti-government. We are anti-big government, we don’t want big government running our lives for us. Just to do what we can’t for ourselves as individuals, or can’t do as well.

Liberals believe in freedom and equality and that basically means freedom for everyone. Not that everyone has the same income and material wealth, but that everyone has good opportunities to live in freedom. So Liberals believe in safety net to help people who don’t have the skills to live in freedom because they lack the education needed, to use as an example. But with that public assistance we don’t want government simply taking care of people, which is what Socialists tend to believe in. We want government to help people help themselves so they can live in freedom as well. Things like education, job training and job placement for the less-fortunate.

The idea of a Liberal Utopia is not socialistic where everyone is completely equal, where big government has all the resources it needs to take care of everyone. The Liberal Utopia would be a place where everyone has the freedom to take care of themselves. Because everyone is well-educated and has the skills to take care of themselves and the freedom to live their own lives as long as they aren’t hurting any innocent people. And are living up to the consequences and responsibilities of their own freedom and decision-making.

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Foreign Affairs: Opinion: Matthias Matthijs & Daniel R. Kelemen: Reforms That Will Save The EU From Irrelevance

Foreign Affairs: Opinion: Matthias Matthijs & Daniel R. Keleman Reforms That Would Save The EU From Irrelevance

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

I’m not suggesting that in the short-term the European Union go from essentially a regional United Nations, even though it’s a lot more effective and run a lot better and I would argue a lot more important and perhaps the most important international player in the Western world outside of the United States and the United Kingdom, to a Federal Republic and state. Even though long-term I believe that would be in Europe’s best interest would be as one federal state in Western Europe. Going from Belgium and Portugal in the West over to Poland and Italy in the East, with every other state in between.

The European Union as a Federal Republic would be a superpower economically, militarily, diplomatically and everything else. And the economies in Europe would be much better off as part as this one huge market of three-hundred and fifty-million people or so. Instead of one mid-size market of forty or sixty-million or so, or even smaller depending on the country. But short-term for the EU to be stronger and more relevant, they need to be a little more centralized as far as the Commission and Parliament being in the same European capital and being part of the same organization under the EU.

As well as the EU should be more democratic with a real executive branch lets say that comes under the President of the European Union. Who would be elected by European Union voters. Voters in each EU state, instead of the EU rotating the presidency every few years or so. The people in these states would elect the EU President. And Commission would come under the President, with the President having their own Commission and appointing essentially cabinet members to the Commission, that would need to be approved by the Parliament. Whether the Parliament is bicameral or unicameral.

These reforms would make the EU more relevant and more effective, because the EU under the President and their commission would be able to act and act effectively dealing with issues that effect Europe and have a Parliament. Organizations like a united European Defense Force, that could eventually replace NATO and be a major partner of the Britain, Canada and America would be able to respond to either attacks inside of the EU, or attacks nearby like human rights and military crisis’ nearby, like in Africa or in Arabia like with what we saw in Libya in 2011 or in Syria today.

The United Nations is essentially a joke and not much more than a debating society. But especially if you compare the UN with the EU and that is not what you want the EU to become a place where nothing is essentially done other than debating and critical issues are never addressed. Which is what we saw with Russia in their invasion of Ukraine and with Syria as well. A united EU whether it is a federal state or not with a strong Commission under a President and a strong Parliament, would be able to address these issues in a timely and effective way. Because now you wouldn’t need all the EU members to agree on anything before anything is done.

Monday, January 12, 2015

The New Democrat Network: Blog: Corey Cantor: Comparing The Economic Records of The Last Two Democratic and Republican Presidents

New Democrat Network: Blog: Corey Cantor: Comparing The Economic Records of The Last Two Democratic and Republican Presidents

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Facts can only sound partisan when they clearly lean in favor of one party or the other. But there’s nothing partisan about the truth. The fact is since 1989, the American economy has done better under Democratic president’s than Republican president’s. I disagree with Corey Cantor on one thing though. Bill Clinton didn’t inherit a recession in 1993, the George H.W. Bush recession was over by I believe the spring of 1992 and the economy grew at around two-percent the last quarter of that year. And President Bush 1 did have a net increase in jobs during his four years.

But the economy even in President Clinton’s first four years, was better than his predecessor President Bush and his successor President Bush as well. Ten-million new jobs net were created in President Clinton’s first four years. Unemployment under six-percent, it was over seven-percent when he took office in 1993. The budget deficit was around three-hundred-billion when President Clinton took office in 1993. And it was cut to one-fifty-billion dollars by 1997.

Then you go up to President George W. Bush who didn’t have one recession, but he had two recessions in his eight years as President. 2001-02, slow recovery in 2003 and then of course a big downturn in 2007, followed the Great Recession of 2008-09. President Bush only had really three solid years economically as President. From 2004-07, out of an eight-year presidency, unlike President Reagan another Republican President who had six solid years economically from 1983-89. President Bush came to office with a hundred-billion dollar budget surplus in 2001. Left office with a one-trillion dollar deficit, and a ten-trillion dollar national debt in 2009.

As much as the American economy may have struggled under President Obama with the slow recovery from the Great Recession, well slow pre-2014, even job growth has been pretty solid since 2010, he wills still leave office n 2017 with a better economic record than President Bush. Assuming there isn’t any major downturn in the economy. If the President and the Republican Congress can agree on trade, tax reform, energy and infrastructure, he probably won’t have that problem to deal with. And may not have to worry about any economic downturn at all. Consumer spending is up, deficit is falling and the President will probably get some trade bills out of Congress in the next two-years.

This isn’t any partisan attacks and if the situation was reversed with the economy doing better under Republican president, you can bet your last dollar that Republicans would be throwing those facts in Democratic faces. But the facts are the economy since 1989 has done better under Democratic presidents. And I could go into why and why I believe that is the case, but that is really the subject for another blog in the future. But as much as Republicans love to talk about fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint, other than George H.W. Bush their presidents haven’t had a very good record there, at least in recent history.

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Marilyn Monroe History: Marilyn Monroe 10 Years On- A 1972 Documentary


Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Imagine how good of an actress and entertainer overall that included comedy, singing and dancing, imagine how good of an entertainer that Marilyn would’ve been had she ever grew up personally and emotionally, had she matured and become a real adult women not just physically, but emotionally and personally as well. Imagine a self-confident, mature, grown up Marilyn Monroe. Now for one thing, very likely she’s still alive today had she took care of herself throughout and didn’t die an unnatural early death. And even at eighty-eight today, maybe she’s still working, or at the very least still in the spotlight.

She had all the physical, professional talent and even personal talent in the sense that she knew how to act and entertain and knew what she was doing on stage. It was when she wasn’t working and how she lived her life outside of work that was her downfall. She didn’t knew how truly good she was and she didn’t take care of herself. And again lacking maturity and with a sense of the real world and seeing things that were simply not there. Like this crazy idea that she Jack Kennedy would dump Jackie for her and that she would become First Lady of the United States married to President Kennedy.

There was the talented potentially great entertainer Marilyn who had the talent to be one of the best entertainers that has ever come out of Hollywood with her ability to do so many different things and do them well. And there was the sixteen or fifteen-year old Marilyn in the body of twenty-five to thirty-year old women who never grew up. Who didn’t like herself that much, who saw things that weren’t there. And you combine the first Marilyn with a mature intelligent self-confident women and again I think we are talking about not only perhaps the best looking entertainer who has ever lived, the goddess of goddess’, but one of the best entertainers of all-time.



Saturday, January 10, 2015

Line Teko- Discovery: Rivals- Jackie Kennedy vs. Marilyn Monroe


Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I’ve made this point before, but the more I read about Marilyn Monroe and the more documentaries I’ve seen about her this point just becomes even more true and this video is just another example of that. Marilyn Monroe lived in another world and probably should’ve been getting therapy and being treated for alcoholism by the mid-1950s or so, assuming those services were around. No way Jack Kennedy dumps the First Lady of the United States, someone who did live in the real world and was college educated and politically represented what JFK needed. Not way JFK dumps Jackie for Marilyn.

To state the obvious Jack Kennedy was never a one women man. He never met a women in his entire forty-six year life and said something to the effect, “damn that is the one women for me. I hook up with her make that relationship work, I’ll never need another women”. Marilyn represented what Jack wanted, but was smart enough to never make a real play for her. A goddess a sex symbol, a women who quite frankly sets guys rockets off so high that they can’t bring them down to Earth. Especially when they are wearing tight outfits, like tight skirts and tight denim jeans, things that Marilyn wore both and a wore them a lot. Especially considering her time and era.

Jackie Kennedy was a very beautiful and very cute women who was also pretty sexy physically. But that wasn’t the main attraction for Jack when it came to her. He wanted her mind and what she represented in the political and social world and the social status that came with being involved with a women like that. All things that Marilyn didn’t have being fairly unstable and seeing things that simply weren’t there and not real. Thinking that she could have a lot more than is really possible and everything else.




Thursday, January 8, 2015

The Democratic Strategist: Blog: William Galston on Non-Populist Liberalism

The Democratic Strategist: Blog: William Galston on Non-Populist Liberalism

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Populism tends to get mixed in with either how should I call it, how about the hard Left and hard Right. The most loyal followers of the Left and Right in the Democratic Party and Republican Party. Who tend to see compromise with the other side or less partisan members of their own party as a sin. And retreat and surrender, terms that don’t tend to go well with good government, responsible government and responsible governing. Where one party tends to not have complete control over the Federal Government. Which has been our normal political history going all the way back since 1969.

The whole point of a two-party system is to give American voters a choice in who to vote for. This party will do this if they are elected and this is what they have to offer the country. And if they have the power, that will be their agenda for the country. With the other party having their own agenda and will try to carry it out if they have the power to do so. But there’s that word if, Democrats and Republicans again going all the way back to 1969 have not had absolute power in the Federal Government for the most part. One party since 1969 has had control of at least one chamber of Congress for the most part.

The Democratic Party should have their own agenda and have something to offer the country for the next election. And something they would run on and try to put through if they control they hold the White House in 2016 and win back bother chambers of Congress with solid majorities in both the House and Senate. But if you’re going to call it a liberal agenda, a populist agenda, than it can’t be simply about big government and more government and higher taxes for everybody. That agenda won’t be supported in this country with anything coming close to a majority.

A liberal democratic agenda, a New Democratic agenda should be about empowering people who have fallen behind and are at the near-bottom or on the bottom of the economic scale to move up the economic ladder. So they can live in freedom with the rest of the country and not need the government to take care of them. If you’re going to call this agenda liberal, than it can’t be about creating new government programs and a superstate design to manage people’s lives for them. But to give people who need it the skills to be able to manage their own lives themselves.

If your agenda is about big government and the superstate, then you don’t have a liberal agenda and certainly not a New Democrat agenda. You have a social democratic agenda, even socialist. That is about big government and using government to take care of people so no one is left behind and isn’t poor and isn’t too rich. And I believe the agenda that Senator Bernie Sanders, the only self-described member of Congress, but certainly not the only Socialist in Congress will run on assuming he does run for president in 2016.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Classic MLB 11: Video: ON Sports: MLB 1981-4/11-Houston Astros @ Los Angeles Dodgers: Full Game


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

The Astros-Dodgers rivalry was pretty good in the 1980s when both clubs were in the NL West and were consistently in the NL West race. The Astros won the division from the Dodgers in 1980 and the Dodgers took the division from the Astros in 1981, 85 and 88. Both teams were consistent winners in the 1980s, because they both played a big pitcher friendly ballparks and both had very good defense and pitching. And at least in the Dodgers case were also very good offensively, with speed, power and guys who could hit for average. The Astros of this period were sort of a light-hitting team that would score enough to win, because they didn’t need a lot of runs to win when they pitched well.



Tuesday, January 6, 2015

The Washington Post: Opinion: Michael Gerson: Are Democrats Stuck in 1979?: How The Democratic Party Has Changed

The Washington Post: Opinion: Michael Gerson: Are Democrats Stuck in 1979?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Just to answer Mike Gerson’s title of his column, no. Democrats are not stuck in 1979, but some are. Pre-1976 and why the Democratic Party lost back-to-back presidential elections in 1968 and 72 and in 72 Senator George McGovern loses to President Richard Nixon in a landslide, Democrats were seen as what would be called redistributionist, welfare statists Social Democrats that would be more into government dependence and redistribution to help people in need and to try to make the economy more equal. Than to empower people at the bottom and near-bottom with things like economic growth, job creation, job training and education. So they could get ahead in America as well.

Jimmy Carter comes along in 1976 and tries to change how the Democratic Party was seen and no longer make it look like a big government welfare statist party that it was seen as before. He had limited success obviously as a New Democrat, but he had a social democratic, Democratic led Congress to deal with. That had large majorities to deal with in both the House and Senate, all four years as President. Which meant if President Carter wanted to get any of his more new democratic proposals accomplished, things like welfare reform and what would become the Affordable Care Act in 2010, trade, deficit reduction, he had to work with Congressional Republicans. Without losing too many Democrats especially in the leadership.

The Democratic Party post-Jimmy Carter would lose too more landslide presidential elections in 1984 and 88. Why, one because they were running against Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Americans started feeling good again. But two, they were still seen as a social democratic McGovernite party that they were seen as in 1972. The Democratic Party of 1968 and 72 was much further left than the LBJ Great Society Progressive Democrats of the 1960s. The New Deal/Great Society Progressive Democrats of the 1930s and 60s, were now replaced with McGovernite New Left Democrats that is known as Occupy Wall Street today. That sees Bernie Sanders as their hero and perhaps Elizabeth Warren. But not Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

When it comes to rhetoric, President Obama is further left than President Bill Clinton and certainly Hillary Clinton. Who I believe in Hillary’s case may be to the right of her husband rhetorically. But their policies when it comes to crime, trade, foreign policy, national security, civil rights, fiscal policy are fairly similar. Barack Obama at times at least may sound like a Elizabeth Warren Progressive, but he governs like a New Democrat. Which is how he ran for president in the 2008 general election, how he’s governed as President and how he ran for reelection in 2012.

As much as Republicans and perhaps even Mike Gerson, who tends to be much smarter than this, but as much as they want to paint Barack Obama as some New Left or Far Left Social Democrat or something, he’s not. I mean why do you think his so-called progressive base is not happy with him? Why do you think they were disappointed with him in his first term and still are today? Because they thought he was one of them. A Dennis Kucinich or George McGovern or Bernie Sanders. People that far to the left can’t get elected President of the United States. Barack Obama is a center-left moderate to liberal-progressive president, who is not far enough to the left for me on social issues. That is how he has governed, because that is who he is.

The Manson Family Today: Video: Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer's 2002 Interview of Susan Atkins


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

I think it is pretty sad the way that Susan Atkins died in prison, especially from brain cancer which must have been horrible for her. And I’m glad she didn’t turn her life around, because I’m not sure life was ever-moving in the right direction in the first place to end up where she did. But she did build a positive life for herself in prison as far as how she did her time and how she helped fellow inmates and helped people on the outside. Life in prison doesn’t have to be and shouldn’t be torture. Other than the fact that you know you’ll never be free and you’ll always be incarcerated. Which is bad enough and shouldn’t be any worst than that if the inmate does their time well and doesn’t further their criminal career inside of prison.

Life in prison still means life and that the person still has their life to live, just in prison and living in prison for the rest of their lives. But that also means they are alive in prison and that they should be able to make out of that time in prison the best that they can do. That it should be a productive and constructive existence for them, the prison and society. That they are not lockdown in a cell most of their days essentially doing nothing. As long as they are behaving themselves and staying out of trouble and taking advantages that are in front of them. Things like education, work, community service and other rehabilitation programs.

By all counts Susan Atkins did those things in her thirty-seven plus years and prison and made of her life sentence the best that she could and perhaps the best anyone could. Especially considering what she was in prison for and the condition she was in when she entered prison. I truly believe the only bad if not evil person that is doing time for the Manson Family murders is Charlie Manson. That is his family hadn’t met Manson and not have fallen for some other criminals or criminals, that they wouldn’t of ended up in prison and probably made positive lives for themselves.

But given all of that, the fact is they including Susan Atkins did hook up with Charlie Manson and they did carry out his evil orders. And committed such crimes that their victims will never get over and recover from because they were murdered. And a life sentence is exactly that. And unless you are paroled and why you would even be eligible for parole when you’re guilty of first degree murder and you’re a serial murderer, is beyond me. But unless you are parole, you’re still on the hook for the crimes you committed. Which is why Susan Atkins shouldn’t of never been rewarded even a compassionate release from prison, which she wasn’t because of the crimes she committed.



Monday, January 5, 2015

Jack London: Video: Charles Manson, The Man Who Killed The 1960s


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

This era the 1960s especially the late 60s is an example of why I wish I was 20-25 years older than I am today. Instead of being born in mid 1970s, I wish I was born in the early 50s or mid-50s. Now of course that would mean I’m either pushing 60, or in my early to mid 60s today, so that would be the drawback. But instead of hearing about the latest celebrity and why they are in jail today, or who they are sleeping with. Or the latest computer or smart phone and what was the coolest commercial Super Bowl, with very little if any mention about who actually won the game, I would be hearing about real true crime stories and people who were at least a certain extent victims of their generation, who were lost and fell to a madman.

The 1960s was an incredibly fascinating for both good and bad. And you could say Charles Manson and his group ended the peace and love anti-establishment decade. But the fact is the 1960s was one of the most divisive and violent decades America has ever experienced before Charlie Manson ever came on the scene. What Manson and his group, his crime family did was to escalate the violence of that decade and take their extreme anger out on completely innocent people. And why they do that? Because their victims were successful and wealthy, unlike the Manson Family. It was almost like a communist or socialist revolution taking out their anger against the rich establishment.

There were people who wanted peace and fought for peace and even died for peace. The great Dr. Martin L. King comes to mind damn fast and perhaps the ultimate tragedy of this decade as far as what happened to him, along with President John F. Kennedy. But the 1960s was not a peaceful decade. There was horrible violence from the early 1960s with a presidential assassination all the way through the decade. And The Manson Family didn’t even strike the biggest blows of the decade. In Los Angeles sure, as far as the amount of people who were killed. But keep in mind U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles in the late 60s, 1968. Not to take away from the Manson victims.

What the Manson Family represented was the anti-establishment movement and violence of the 1960s. And they took that to a horrible new evil level that perhaps hasn’t been unmatched by any other crime group in America, at least as far as the amount of people they killed in the amount of time that they killed. The Manson Family really were all about the 1960s and represented a lot of the good and bad. Mostly bad, but the 60s hippie movement, peace and love all of that didn’t die with the Manson Family. Because those things were always just dreams anyway.




Sunday, January 4, 2015

Reelz: Real Life Marilyn Monroe


Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

In many ways Marilyn Monroe was about as real of a person as we can get, at least on the inside. She was very human with all sorts of strengths and weakness’ and vulnerabilities. That the real Marilyn was the baby-face goddess on the outside, but the real Marilyn was also a very vulnerable person on the inside who was pretty immature and tended to see things the way she wanted to, instead of how they were. It is easy to say that a women like that, again on the outside should never lack confidence, because she has it all.

Marilyn never had it all. She was physically a goddess, a pretty good actress, a very funny person and a pretty good singer. But she was never in love, never had a successful marriage. Never felt satisfied in life and probably never thought much of herself as a person and suffered from what we would call today at least depression. When that is how you look at yourself and you’re missing that many things in life that people love having, you don’t have it all. And you can see why she wasn’t that happy, if at all.

You can have everything that a women at least could dream on the outside. But unless you’re also pretty strong inside, you’re not going to do very well in life. Not calling her dumb, but she lacked maturity and self-confidence that a stronger person mentally would’ve done much better in life, because they would’ve known exactly who they are and what they have to offer and be very happy with themselves. Which is something that Marilyn never had in life.
Reelz: Marilyn Monroe Behind The Glamour



Saturday, January 3, 2015

The Marilyn Monroe Lounge-Reelz: The Kennedys 2011- Marilyn Monroe and JFK


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I think this scene is pretty accurate. That Marilyn Monroe wanted Jack Kennedy, but that Jack was smart enough to know that he couldn’t get involved with her. Because of everything that he would’ve risked, especially his presidency. The thing I think that is interesting is that he didn’t feel the same way about mobsters girlfriends that he got involved with as President, like Judith Exner to use as an example. But he was smart enough to know that Marilyn was essentially a little girl mentally as far as maturity. And her baby-face on the outside was also part of her personality inside. And she saw things from a Hollywood perspective, the way she wanted to see them. And had a difficult time dealing with reality. And I think this scene make that very clear.




Friday, January 2, 2015

ADS LNK: Video: NBC's Tomorrow Show, Tom Snyder Interview of Charles Manson, in 1985


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

I don’t think there is a lot new here at least from what we already know about Charlie Manson, at least the people who have followed his life in and out of prison. The one thing that is different, is that he’s in a medical facility, instead of hardcore prison and he’s not in solitary confinement. Tom Snyder was granted excellent access of Manson and Manson’s time at Vacuville. It would’ve been nice to know what Manson was doing there, because it did look fairly healthy, at least physically. Mentally I’m not sure he’s ever been healthy and has ever been a right frame of mind, but that is a different story.

Manson apparently still living on his own planet. Tom Snyder asked him point-blank, “why do people follow you”? And he does this little dance and does all of these vibrations, like he’s a god or something. And Snyder asked Manson about Vince Bugliosi’s book, the man who prosecuted The Manson Family and his book about those trials. And Manson said that Bugliosi got the times and dates right. And that was essentially Bugliosi’s version of what happened back then. But nothing about whether Bugliosi was accurate or not.

Charlie Manson has been in prison for his last crimes for now forty-five years. The man is now eighty-years old and when he went to prison for the last time back in late 1969 or early 1970, he had already spend half of his life in either juvenile hall, jail or prison. That is all he knows. And even today he still doesn’t take any responsibility for his crimes. So why would he of bothered to do that back almost thirty-years ago. The man belongs in hell and if he’s going to be allowed to live he should and is in hell on Earth.



Thursday, January 1, 2015

Andrew Glover: Video: CBS Sports: NFL 1976-NFC Final-Los Angeles Rams @ Minnesota Vikings: 3rd Quarter


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

1976 was probably the Rams best opportunity to beat the Vikings in the NFC Final. This was an aging Vikings team that no longer had that dominant defense that they had before, with all of their great defenders in their early or mid thirties and even older than that. The Rams were still a fairly young, but veteran team, that Chuck Knox put together in Los Angeles. That had probably one of the top four defenses in the NFL, that also had one of the better running games in the NFL as well.

But Chuck Knox was called Ground Chuck for a great reason. He ran the ball probably 35-40 times a game and at least sixty-percent of the time, or more. And didn’t utilize his other weapons on offense in the passing game. And unless you’re blowing away the defense consistently in the running game and getting big plays from that and big runs and scoring touchdowns, which the Rams didn’t do much in this game, you’re going to struggle against tough defenses. That the Vikings still had in 76, that also were good and balanced on offense.