The New Democrat Online

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy

Saturday, October 31, 2015

Star Celebrities: Marilyn Monroe in The Kennedys

Robert F. Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, John F. Kennedy-
This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

John F. Kennedy, is my number one political hero, but as great as a politician as he was and in many ways a great man, he never becomes President of the United States if the media back then bothered to report on the personal lives of politicians. Only tabloids did that and as most people know tabloids aren’t taken seriously especially when it comes to politicians. At least by intelligent people. Because Jack Kennedy, is simply one of the most irresponsible politicians we’ve ever had at least as far as how he lived his personal life. He had personal and even friendly relationships with gangsters and friends of gangsters. And even had an affair as a married man with the girlfriend of a gangster in Judy Campbell. The girlfriend of Italian gangster Sam Giacana.

Marilyn Monroe, is an example of the recklessness of Jack Kennedy. Not that Marilyn was a bad person, because the opposite is true there, but she was a very immature baby-faced adorable women, whose personality and maturity didn’t seem much older. Who was mentally unstable and had Hollywood fantasies that Jack would divorce his wife Jackie and that Marilyn would become next First Lady of the United States. All Jack wanted from Marilyn was her body, sex and a good time. Which might sound really rude, if not crude, but he never saw Marilyn as long-term romance material and not marriage material. But to be completely honest, I don’t believe he ever saw any women as marriage material. In the sense he would settle down with her and give up all of his affairs.

Jack, officially broke it off with Marilyn in 1962 and of course didn’t have the decency and wasn’t man enough to personally tell her that himself. And had his brother and most trusted aid Bobby do that for him. But that is as far as it goes with how Marilyn was after she got the news and how they effected her. There’s no real evidence if any evidence, of anyone being in the house other than Marilyn and her housekeeper the night that she died at home. The most loyal of Marilyn fans will never except that a women this sexy, beautiful and adorable, with the great personality, sense of humor, talent and everything else, and entertainer who was headed to Hollywood Hall of Fame has she lived in normal live in years, that she killed herself. Accidentally, or otherwise and that is why these conspiracy theories that someone murdered her exist.


Friday, October 30, 2015

Full History Documentary: Unsolved History: Who Killed Marilyn Monroe- The Secret Truth

Full History Documentary: Unsolved History: Who Killed Marilyn Monroe- The Secret Truth

We know who killed Marilyn Monroe. Well that is everyone familiar with the story and this incredible for good and bad Hollywood Goddess and her life and how she lived, who is not a current resident at a mental hospital, an escaped mental patient whose on the lam, as well as anyone capable of understanding commonsense and real evidence that is right in front of them that even a blind person could see. Marilyn, not intentionally, but again that is the question here whether this was suicide, or an accidental death like someone driving off a cliff after losing control of the car. Because she was both a very irresponsible women, who had real mental issues and not always in complete control of what she was doing. Who for whatever reasons could never understand everything that she had going for her.

“A depressed Marilyn Monroe who committed suicide.” That is the only question here. Did she kill herself intentionally, or accidentally. A depressed women who one hot night in Los Angeles decides that life is hell and she can’t take it anymore and takes enough pills to kill three people. Well, that is more believable than U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy coming by one night and killing her so the affair she had with his brother President Jack Kennedy, doesn’t get out. But again we’re talking about an unstable women who drank too much, who perhaps could have given Jim Morrison a run for his money when it came to drinking alcohol in one night. Who took a lot of pills as well to make herself feel better and numb her reality which she thought was hell. But would have been paradise for perhaps 9-10 other Americans. Which again goes to her mental unbalance.

I believe the only solid theory to how Marilyn Monroe died was that she accidentally killed herself from a drug overdose. A bad combination of alcohol and sleeping pills. Remember, a mentally unbalanced women who drank a lot and probably drank herself to sleep on a regular basis, especially since her career was basically on hold now, because he was becoming even more unprofessional at work and getting fired from movie roles. Who also took sleeping pills every night to numb herself along with the alcohol. That is the only believable theory here, because no one has offered any evidence that someone else killed her. And has no evidence of anyone else being there and who that person could have possibly be. She wasn’t alone that night, because her housekeeper was asleep down the hall. Had someone broke in to kill Marilyn, the housekeeper would have known about it. Which is why the second killer theory simply doesn’t hold. Along with no evidence of anyone else being there.


Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Martin O'Malley: Governor Martin O'Malley at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner

The Progressive With Results
Martin O'Malley: Governor Martin O'Malley at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner

I think Martin O’Malley is finally getting it as a presidential campaigner. “The Progressive with results”, to paraphrase Hillary Clinton from the Democratic debate a couple of weeks ago. The difference between Governor O’Malley and Secretary Clinton, has been impact. And a record of accomplishments on the key issues that Liberal and Progressive Democrats care about and a lot of other Americans. But it’s really Senator Clinton, because it’s as Senator Clinton that Hillary Clinton has had the biggest impact in her career on all the issues. Secretary of State, is a huge job, but its a national security job primarily and you’re not that involved in issues outside of foreign policy and national security for the most part. Hillary Clinton, can say she’s fought the good fight and fought hard on these issues when she was in Congress. But Governor O’Malley can say he won those fights in Maryland as Governor. The difference between an executive and a legislature.

Executives, have to govern, they have no choice. Your state doesn’t pass an annual budget, your agencies run out of money and as a result have to suspend business. Because there’s no money coming in and they can’t afford to pile up debt and deficits, because there’s a hard limit to what they can borrow, because they don’t have their own currency. But when you’re a legislature especially in Congress, a Representative, or in Hillary’s case a Senator can say, “we fought the good fight on this issue and almost had the votes to get it passed in this Congress. We’ll come back in the next session, or next Congress and get it done, especially if more of us are elected to Congress.” A governor, doesn’t have that luxury. They have to pass a budget, they have to make sure that roads get built, schools and colleges are funded, law enforcement officers are on the street, well-equipped and so-forth. Governor O’Malley as a record of accomplishing things into law that Democrats say they support.

Of the three remaining Democrats for president, only Martin O’Malley can say he got a same-sex marriage law passed, decriminalized marijuana, had the best public schools in the country for five years, got a minimum wage law passed, passed middle class tax cuts, increased investment in public infrastructure, kept the cost of college down. All of these accomplishments in a very high cost of living state and doing it during the Great Recession and the slow recovery from it. Senator Bernie Sanders, can say he supports all of these causes and I’m sure he does and Hillary, I guess can now say she does to, because her polling is telling her that, (ha, ha) but only the Governor, because Martin was a Governor and a damn good one and was a Progressive with real results. Who just didn’t talk the good game and fought hard, but actually won a lot of those battles and had real victories there.

Perhaps Martin’s campaign theme, should be, “The Progressive Governor With Real Results.” And run on someone who actually broke gridlock. And tell voters that all the issues you’ve cared about he just doesn’t care about them, or has shown up to the dance late on them. But he’s actually come through and won a lot of those battles already. Again, minimum wage, same-sex marriage, marijuana decriminalization, lowered crime and increased put more police on the street. Who thought Baltimore would actually be livable 10-15 years ago and now its a big thriving growing city with all sorts of new white-collar business’s coming there. Including a brand new casino that has kept millions of tax dollars in Baltimore and Maryland, instead of going to Delaware, New Jersey, or West Virginia. All of this progress that true Progressives believe in happened under Martin O’Malley. Not Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders. And that is what the Governor should be telling Democrats. He’s a Democrat whose accomplished progressive goals and brought progress to millions of Americans.


Monday, October 26, 2015

David Newman: NFL Films: The Story of The 1982 St. Louis Cardinals

David Newman: NFL Films: The Story of The 1982 St. Louis Cardinals

I remember the NFL’s St. Louis Cardinals pretty well, because I started watching football in the early and mid 1980s and even though the Cardinals are from St. Louis, they played in the NFC East with the Redskins. So I got to see the Cardinals twice a year for about six seasons. And I always remember them playing the Redskins very tough even though the Redskins were always better. The Redskins won two Super Bowls and won three NFC championships and the Cardinals made one playoff appearance, but they had three winning seasons. They were a very talented group that would win 8-9 games and barely miss the except 1982 under head coach Jim Hanifan. And I guess that is why I’m interested in a team that only made one playoff appearance in the 1980s.

The 1980s Cardinals, probably should have won more. They had an All-Pro quarterback in Neil Lomax. Who if his career wasn’t cut short due to injury is probably in the Hall of Fame today. If you look at their backfield they had OJ Anderson, who perhaps should be in the Hall of Fame today. Definitely one of the best tailbacks of the 1980s. Who had great size and power at 6’2 225 pounds, but was also fast and could run away from you. Very similar to OJ Simpson, Jim Brown, or Eric Dickerson. And they had Stump Mitchell behind OJ. Who was a great runner and receiver, similar to Joe Washington. And Neil Lomax had receivers Roy Green, Mel Gray and later JT Smith and tight end Pat Tilley. And a good offensive line with Hall of Famer Dan Dierdorf, Louis Sharpe and Joe Bostic. This was a team that had a lot of talent on offense and had good players on defense. Like defensive Freddie Joe Nunn and linebacker EJ Junior.

The 1980s St. Louis Cardinals, were very good and contended a lot, but they had a habit of putting scares into good winning teams that won consistently, but not enough to actually win the game. They would upset a very good team and then lose to a bad team. They either gave up on Jim Hanifan too soon, or replaced him with the wrong head coach in Gene Stallings. I think pretender is the best way to describe the Cardinals of this era. Seemed like every season they looked like they were good enough to win and would get back to the NFC Playoffs and maybe even win the NFC East. But they wouldn’t close the door and would lose at the last-minute. Make a key mistake when they couldn’t afford it. But similar to the New Orleans Saints pre-Jim Mora they were a fun team to watch. But only better than the Saints.


Saturday, October 24, 2015

HBO: Inside the NFL, Featuring the New Orleans Saints 12/10/87: Goodbye to The New Orleans Aints

Nick Buoniconti & Bobby Hebert-
This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

The New Orleans Saints finally not just make the playoffs in 1987, but had their first winning season as well. But several of those players that played for the 87 Saints were also there before Jim Mora got there. Like their great outside rush end Rickey Jackson, their great inside linebacker Sam Mills, their great halfback Rueben Mays, safety Dave Waymer, tight end Hobey Brenner and many others. The Saints under Bum Phillips and later Jim Finks and Jim Mora, drafted very well for the Saints for about five years in the 1980s. What Jim Mora brought to the Saints was teaching them how to win. He won championships in the USFL with the Baltimore Stars and that is the only reason why he went to the NFL which was to win. But he inherited a talented team and added to that.

If you look at the Saints of the early 1980s and then later in the late eighties and early nineties they were basically the same team on both sides of the ball as far as their philosophy, they were just better. But run they ran the ball real well and got big pass plays off of their running game and could put together long ball-control drives. And then on defense they could take away your running game and attack your quarterback with their 3-4 blitz pressure defense. Their 3-4 blitz defense was called the Dome Patrol. Where you had Rickey Jackson on one side and Pat Swilling on the other side. Both linebackers the essentially the size of smaller defensive ends with great speed. Where you would need an offensive tackle to block them. And then your three down lineman are there to eat up blocks and space to free up your linebackers to rush the quarterback and attack the runners.

As I mentioned in the piece about the 1983 Saints, Jim Finks and Jim Mora, didn’t inherit a bad 2-14 football team. The were 5-11 in 85 and 6-10 in 86, the first season under Mora. Mora, inherited good players on defense and offense and what he did with that was added to that and bring in more players on defense and offense. Like quarterback Bobby Hebert, who gave them a consistent passing game. And wide receiver Eric Martin, who gave them a very good possession receiver on the outside with good speed. And then they had Dalton Hilliard to go with Rueben Mays in the backfield. It took the Saints 21 seasons to become winners, but it didn’t happen overnight. They were building their good team for several years and finally put it all together in 1987.


Thursday, October 22, 2015

Economist's View: Opinion: Alan Krueger: The Minimum Wage: How Much is Too Much?

Economist's View: Opinion: Alan Krueger: The Minimum Wage: How Much is Too Much?

Good question, because how is a job where the employee bags groceries, rings up groceries, makes cheeseburgers, cleans up after people, takes orders from customers, worth. Not as much as the person who hires those people, or as much as the people who supervise those employees. In a not free, but private market economy, a lot of this is left up to the employer as far as how much their employees are worth over the minimum wage. Whatever the minimum wage should be, it can’t be so high that small employers especially simply can’t afford to pay their entry-level employees that wage. You don’t want a minimum wage that equals the amount of money of a supervisor, or a manager. Because the supervisor and manager simply has more responsibility and value to the company, then someone who is just starting with the business. Perhaps coming off Welfare and might only have a high school diploma.

I hate the term non-essential employee, because it implies that other employees are not essential. Which comes up in the minimum wage debates and opponents will say that entry-level and other lower-level employees aren’t worth much more than the minimum wage, or even worth less, because they’re not essential. Which is a bogus argument, because how would you run a grocery store with cashiers and stockers. You might not need cashiers now because customers can now ring up their own groceries, but you eliminate all cashiers, now you’re spending more money on computers. Which might be more expensive. But someone has to stock the store, work in the bakery, work in seafood, work in the deli, etc. And the store wouldn’t be open without these employees who in many cases are making 8-9 bucks and hour and that is if they have experience working there, or at another store.

The United States poverty level is roughly twenty-thousand-dollars a year, give or take. Which is about four-hundred-dollars a week for a full-time employee. The current Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour and if you work forty-hours a week fifty-two weeks a year and if that is what you’re making you probably don’t have vacation pay, that comes out $290 a week. Just over fifteen-thousand-dollars a year, which roughly 3-4 of the poverty level in the United States. So minimum wage employees in America don’t even make the official poverty level in America, but about seventy-five-percent of that. And again we’re talking about essential employees that without their employers couldn’t be in business and yet their employers feel they’re paid adequately. Which of course is not accurate.

I don’t know what entry-level and other lower-level workers are worth. But again their employers wouldn’t be in business without them, so that tells me they’re worth a hell of a lot more than they are. I’m not on board for a fifteen-dollar an hour minimum wage at least at the Federal level. What states and localities do is their business. But 10-12 an hour and again not a lot of money even for a full-time employee, they’re certainly worth that, because again their employer wouldn’t be in business without them. And then help small business’s with a tax credit so they don’t get hurt by it. While large employers who are clearly underpaying their employees would have to pay the full amount. And Libertarians and Conservatives will say that, “the market should decide all wages and compensation in America.” But the fact is the market doesn’t do that, but employers only with government setting basic standards for workers compensation.


Tuesday, October 20, 2015

NFL Films: 1987 Minnesota Vikings- Making a Move

Joey Browner & Anthony Carter
NFL Films: 1987 Minnesota Vikings- Making a Move

1987 was a big season for the Minnesota Vikings for several reasons. Their first playoff appearance since 1982 and they were stuck in mediocrity from 1983-86 with 7-9 and 8-8 records. Actually their 1987 8-7 record wasn’t much better, but they did finally get back to the NFC Playoffs. 1987 was also the Vikings first trip back to the NFC Championship since their last Super Bowl team which was 1976. The Vikings became winners again in 1987 and won a couple playoff games and one play away from getting back to the Super Bowl. The 87 Vikings, were good, but certainly not great. Perhaps could’ve won a few more games. But this is a team that got hot in the playoffs after struggling just to get there and came together at the right time.

If you look at the good Vikings teams from the 1970s on offense, they were very similar to the Vikings of the 1980s. A finesse possession passing pass first team that ran the ball off of their passing game and ran the ball by committee. But also threw the ball to several different receivers. Instead of having one or two great receivers they had several good receivers that they could throw the ball to. Anthony Carter, was a great big play receiver and you team him a Chris Carter, Jerry Rice, Art Monk, or another great possession go to receiver on the other side and he would’ve had a great career, because he never would have been double teamed. But he never had that great receiver on the other side that the quarterback could always go to. So the 87 Vikings instead spread the ball around to several different people. Like TE Steve Jordan and halfback Darin Nelson.

The 87 Vikings defense, again very similar to the Purple People Eaters of the 1970s. Not a big blitz team, because they didn’t have to. They could attack the quarterback with just their front four. With defensive end Chris Dolman, who should be in the Hall of Fame, defensive tackle Keith Millard, who was a Pro Bowler for them, defensive tackle Henry Thomas, who perhaps should be in the Hall of Fame as well. Defensive end Doug Martin, was a solid pass rusher for them. And when you can get to the quarterback with your defensive line, it allows for you to drop your linebackers and defensive backs back into coverage and knock passes down, break up big plays, attack receivers with big hits and pick off passes. Which the Vikings were good at with their coverage.

When you have an 8-7 team that barely makes the playoffs and you upset two teams on the road just to get to the conference championship, you by definition are not a great team. But a team that struggled through the season and then got hot in the playoffs. Which is what the 87 Minnesota Vikings were, but they had very good talent on both sides of the ball. That came together at the time and almost beat the eventual Super Bowl champion Washington Redskins in the NFC Championship. And then you look at where the Vikings were the previous four seasons before the 87 season where they would just miss the playoffs and finish 8-8, or 7-9, the Vikings did have a great year in 87, became winners again and very close to even getting back to the Super Bowl.


Saturday, October 17, 2015

David Von Pein: JFK With Peter Jennings, 1983

ABC News-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I think the biggest tragedy that the JFK assassination had on the Democratic Party is that Jack Kennedy was that last bridge between the Center-Left Liberal and Progressive Democrats and the New-Left that came of age in the Democratic Party in the mid 1960s up to the early 1970s or so. People who were much further left than the Liberals and Progressives in the party and had more social democratic and even communist leanings. Who were anti-American establishment, anti-military, anti-war, anti-law enforcement, anti-government use of force in general, who wanted to bring down the American federal form of government and replace it with a social democratic and even communist government in some cases.

Jack Kennedy was a Liberal Democrat who wanted to use government to carry out many liberal, progressive and even social democratic goals as it has to do with the economy. And creating an economy where more Americans could benefit. But didn’t have a big centralized government solution for every problem. He didn’t want to make Americans dependent on government, but use government to empower struggling Americans of all races to become dependent on themselves and be able to live in freedom. JFK is killed in 1963 and less than a year later the so-called Great Society is created by President Lyndon Johnson, with all sorts of new progressive, or social democratic federal programs to take care of millions of Americans. JFK would be what we would call a New Democrat today. A Center-Left Liberal who believed government could help people help themselves instead. And not leave them dependent on government.

JFK was a Cold Warrior, anti-communist, pro-freedom and freedom for all Americans, not just European-Americans and he did come out for what would be called the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the summer of 1963. Who wanted to create an American economy where all Americans could benefit and live in freedom. With strong investments in education and job training, aid to struggling communities so they could educate their kids as well, job training for struggling Americans who were working, but not able to make enough money to live well, because they lacked skills. In many ways he was the last great Center-Left Liberal Democrat of his generation that came to power and became President of the United States. We didn’t have another Democrat with similar politics become President who had a successful presidency until Bill Clinton in 1993. And I would argue Barack Obama as well and not just because I’m a big fan of both President’s Clinton and Obama.

You could write all sorts of pieces about the JFK presidency and his impact on the Democratic Party and country as a whole. But to cover everything you would have to write at least one great book. With this piece I’m more interested in his impact on the Democratic Party and American politics. And post JFK the Democratic Party moved very Left if not Far-Left, especially when it came to foreign policy and national security, but criminal justice and law enforcement, where by 1980 or so the Democratic Party was no longer trusted on these issues. And it wasn’t until mid 1990s or so when under President Clinton that the Democratic Party was once again trusted to govern and defend the country. The JFK assassination was horrible for the country, but it really hurt the Democratic Party as well. Because again he was that bridge between the Center-Left and Far-Left of the party.
David Von Pein: JFK With Peter Jenning's, 1983



Friday, October 16, 2015

NFL Films: New Orleans Saints 1983 Highlights: A Little Bit More

NFL Films: New Orleans Saints 1983 Highlights: A Little Bit More

Jim Mora, gets a lot of credit for turning the New Orleans Saints into winners and a consistent playoff team for the first time in their franchise history in the late 1980s and early 1990s. And he and Jim Finks deserve a lot of credit for that, because of how the drafted and the teams that Coach Mora brought to New Orleans. That played great defense and ran the ball well with solid quarterbacking. But the Saints had been very close to becoming a very competitive team and even a playoff team and flirting with the playoffs in the late 1970s, in 78 and 79. And just missed the NFC Playoffs in 1983 under Bum Phillips. Bum, inherited a 1-15 team from 1980 and they just barely missed the playoffs in 1982 and 83. Fell back a little in 1984 finishing 7-9 and then Bum retires at the end of the 85 season.

It was not like Jim Finks and Jim Mora inherited an awful 2-14 team, or something that had almost no talent on either offense and defense. And most the talent that they did have were past their primes. Which is what Jimmy Johnson inherited with the 1989 Dallas Cowboys. Bum Phillips built the Houston Oilers into a consistent winning and playoff team that came within one game of the Super Bowl both in 78 and 79, by putting together strong tough defenses and a power running game with Earl Campbell, with a strong offensive line. Which is what he did in New Orleans by putting together the best pass defense in the NFL in 1983 that had a very good pass rush as well. With defensive end Frank Warren and rush end Rickey Jackson. And a strong power running game with George Rogers and Wayne Wilson.

The theme of the 1983 Saints was, "A Little Bit More." Which is exactly what they needed finishing the season with an 8-8 record and coming within one game of making their first playoff appearance and having their first winning record ever. From about 1978-84 or so, they were consistently flirting with having both a winning season and making the NFC Playoffs. 1980 and 81, would be exceptions to that. They had a strong pass defense and pass rush, but gave up a lot of yards on the ground. Great power running game averaging 150 yards a game rushing, but didn't have any great receivers. And needed to run the ball the lot to move the ball and score points. This was a team was very close, but needed "A Little Bit More." Needed more weapons in the passing game and a stronger run defense. But the Saints under Bum Phillips improved real fast and he deserves a lot of credit for that.



Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Brookings: EDU: John Hudak: How The GOP Lost The Democratic Presidential Debate: The Aftermath of The First Democratic Presidential Debate

The First Team
Brookings: EDU: John Hudak: How The GOP Lost The Democratic Presidential Debate: The Aftermath of The First Democratic Presidential Debate

I believe the debate that we saw last night between the Democrats is exactly what the party should be doing a lot more. Intelligent serious people who all have different ideas and experiences who come together and lay out where they want to take the country and why they should lead. Instead of having 10-15 people up there as if they’re at a WWE Battle Royal or something, who all have things that the Tea Party doesn’t like about them and have issues with Independents as well, who try to make everyone else worse than they do, instead of offering a positive vision for the country. The Democratic Party should have at least 5-6, or more of these things before the end of the year. And show Americans just how much more serious and qualified Democrats are over Republicans.

As far as the winners, Hillary Clinton’s best performance of this campaign season. She did nothing to hurt herself and get her base to worry about her. She was sharp and even funny and came out of her centrist shell which has been dogging her at least since she ran for president the first time and couldn’t admit to what almost everyone else in the country believed which was the Iraq War was a mistake and she shouldn’t have voted for it. She had a great line to the question from Anderson Cooper about is she a Progressive or a Centrist and she answered she’s a Progressive results. Meaning to me anyway that she doesn’t just fight the good fight, but she gets things done and moves the ball forward even if that means working with pragmatic Republicans. There was nothing in this debate to show that she’s not still clearly the favorite.

Bernie Sanders, I don’t think hurt himself here either. Other than losing an opportunity to close the gap between her and Hillary in the national Democratic polls. And he was caught on the defensive on issues like gun control and I don’t believe he sounded like a strong Commander-In-Chief last night. Which is the most important part of the job. If anything he came out finished 5-5 on national security and foreign policy issues. Even losing to Martin O’Malley who has never served in Congress, or in the military, or in the foreign service before. But he didn’t lose any support with his Far-Left Democratic Socialist base. And perhaps even picked up some votes from the Green Party that otherwise would vote for Jill Stein if they bother to vote at all.

Martin O’Malley, good night for him. I wish Anderson Cooper had let the Governor answer the marijuana question. Because as Governor of Maryland he decriminalized marijuana and he could have shared some of the experiences that Maryland has had with marijuana. I don’t think O’Malley did anything to boost his national poll standing, or boost his numbers in Iowa, or New Hampshire, but he showed that he’s ready for the Major Leagues and deserves to be on the same stage as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, at least.

Jim Webb, impressed me at least in the sense that I could easily see him as the next Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, National Security Director, for President Hillary Clinton. Because I believe by far has the best grasp and experience when it comes national security and foreign policy issues really on anyone running for president right now, especially with Vice President Joe Biden being in the race yet. And he did make some good points about criminal justice and education for returning veterans and the work he did on those issues. But I don’t see him with much of a base and even reason for running for president in the Democratic Party.

Lincoln Chafee, I think he’s a hell of a Democrat on the issues and is very likable and perhaps should have been a Democrat all along. But he blew the Glass-Steagall question and essentially answered that he voted for something without understanding it and not bothering to read the legislation first. But similar to Jim Webb he didn’t have much of a reason and case for running for president in the first place. We now have a three person presidential race in the Democratic Party. Perhaps 2 and a half. Martin O’Malley showed that he belongs here, the question is can he build on that and gain support and financing. And we’ll see where the Democrats go from here.


Monday, October 12, 2015

Constitution Daily: No Taxation Without Representation!

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

It is not often that I blog about no taxation without representation and perhaps I should blog about it more, because it is a clear issue as well as constitutional violation. To require people to pay for services and government that they have no say in when it comes to Congress in whether they should pay for those services, or should those services even exist in the first place. When I think of jurisdictions in America that are actually subjected to taxation without representation, Washington DC, where I live just outside of in Bethesda and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, come to mind real fast.

They both have official representation to Congress with each having a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives. But neither even has a member in the Senate. To jurisdictions and yet between the two of them they have two members of Congress. When the fifty states including Alaska and Hawaii, all have at least three members of Congress. They all have at least one representative in the House and two senators in the Senate. And yet they both pay Federal taxes and in Puerto Rico’s case, they don’t get money back from the taxes that they pay in services. For example, Puerto Rico, doesn’t get money from the Affordable Care Act for things like Medicaid. And have to find other ways to cover their uninsured. Even though they pay taxes on it. One example of why they’re bankrupt.

This is very simple. If you’re going to charge people in the form of taxes for government services, then they should get a say in that through voting directly, or having elected representatives vote for them with their constituents getting to decide if those representatives should continue representing them, or not. Washington DC is strange, at least compared with a lot of the country and how they’re physically set up is just one example. Physically, it’s a city and a very urban one at that. Big city in population with six-hundred and fifty-thousand people or, so in area of six-million people. One of the biggest cities and metro areas in the country. But the city itself is small in size even for a big city and yet they are forced to function as a city, county and state. For example, they have to run their own prison system while every other big city has a state that does that for them.

Puerto Rico, about the size of Connecticut in population without four-million people and New Jersey when it comes to land, essentially functions like a state. It has what would be called everywhere else a state government, with an executive, legislature and judiciary, with county and municipal governments as well. Except they don’t get the services that they pay for in taxes and don’t have representatives in Congress in either the House, or Senate, but they still have to pay the Federal Government for the services that the rest of the country receives. These are clear examples of taxation without representation, that Puerto Rico could fix on their own by either voting for independence and becoming their own country, or voting for statehood and becoming the 51st state in the United States. Washington DC, would be better off as part of another state, just because of its size. Like being part of Maryland, but the Federal Government would have to decide that themselves.






Saturday, October 10, 2015

David Von Pein: Thank You Mr. President 1983: A Look at President John F. Kennedy's Press Conferences

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Watching President John F. Kennedy’s press conferences makes me want President Barack Obama to do more of them. Because they really do have a lot in common when it comes to intelligence, being off the cuff both in humor and how they talk and being able to give long intelligent answers to a whole host of questions off the cuff and being able to do it with humor. President Kennedy made press conferences fun for the reporters there because of his quick wit, but also because he gave them real information that they could work on a whole host of issues. From civil rights, to the economy, to foreign policy, the budget, the Cold War, nuclear power and everything else. Which gave Americans a great idea about how the President thought and what his administration was working on.

This was Jack Kennedy’s first press conference as President of the United States. Early 1961 with Democrats not just coming to power, but now they had all the power as a party. With the White House and both chambers of Congress with large majorities both in the House and Senate. A big part of that had to do with the Democratic Party having a right-wing Dixiecrat base in the South. Democrats who are and would be Republicans today. So the Republican Party was not just in the opposition in 1961, but were an opposition minority party that was reeling and not sure where they would go from there. I think President Kennedy was enjoying all of this and taking little jabs at the GOP with their current political status and that comes off in come of his answers.


Thursday, October 8, 2015

Marilyn Monroe History: AMC's Backstory: The Making Of The Seven Year Itch

Tom Ewell & Marilyn Monroe
Marilyn Monroe History: AMC's Backstory: The Making Of The Seven Year Itch

The Seven Year Itch is not one of my favorite movies. It’s a very good funny movie that is at least ten-years ahead of its time, but it’s not one of my favorites. But what I think I like most about it is that it’s a 1950s movie that takes on the 1950s. Here is this country called the United States of America that’s supposed to be this great land of freedom and everything and yet Americans back then weren’t free to be Americans. They couldn’t be themselves and didn’t have the freedom to be who they were and talk about what they were interested in and live their own lives for fear of censorship. And perhaps not being able to find jobs if they were who they actually were and moved away from the 1950s culturally conservative box where all Americans were supposed to be the same way.

Sex and adultery and of course humor about those things, of course they went on back then. They just weren’t done in public at least on TV and in films. The Seven Year Itch changed that by bringing out adultery and sex in the public. To show how men act and what they think about when their wife is out-of-town and they’re home alone and there’s a hot sexy women nearby whose very friendly. And who would essentially let the guy do whatever he wants with her, because she’s open to practically anything. The Seven Year Itch didn’t end the culturally conservative bubble of the 1950s. But it did show Americans that these things happen even though everyone knew that and that there wasn’t anything wrong with talking about it. The political correctness movement back then was basically dominated by what would be called the Christian-Right today and The Seven Year Itch took them on.

You could have a man with the most beautiful wife possible, who loves her and loves his kids and doesn’t want to lose them, or his wife. But we all think about other women especially hot sexy women like Marilyn Monroe, or anyone else and when our girlfriend, or wife is not there for whatever reason like perhaps visiting family out-of-town and another hot sexy women comes into the picture and she’s very friendly and shows an interest in him, or course the guy is going to think about her. And throw out ideas like, “I’ll have her over for one drink, who’ll be hurt by it? I’ll invite her out for dinner. It will be very neighborly. Besides my wife will never know anyway.” And that is what the Tom Ewell character does in this movie. He essentially fantasizes about what would life be like with another beautiful women.


Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Smoked Video: A&E's Investigative Reports- JFK's Sexual Appetite

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

1960 might have been the last time that John F. Kennedy could have even ran for president. Even if he lived a normal life in years, because by 1968 or so the media was no longer afraid to investigate and report on the personal lives of politicians. Jack Kennedy doesn’t get elected president if his affairs had got out, but not just the affairs, but where the affairs took place like under his wife’s nose and in the same house where Jackie was then, but also because of the connections that his affairs had. Judith Campbell, for example being a girlfriend of Sam Giancana. The Kennedy Family including Jack, was already linked with the Italian Mafia in America and not just because of the efforts of the Kennedy Administration to crack down on organized crime, but they were friendly as well.

Senator Kennedy doesn’t win Illinois during the 1960 presidential election without Chicago and he doesn’t win Chicago without the Italian Mafia there. The early 1960s was really the last time that national politicians could get away with lets side affairs and shady deals before someone not just knew about it, but then reported it as well. President Kennedy probably gets reelected in 1964, but unless his lifestyle changed his second administration would have been hell for him. Because these affairs would have gotten out and you have heard rumblings at least even in a Democratic Congress that it might be time to remove the President, because of the dangerous lifestyle that he lived and the potential blackmail that came with these irresponsible affairs.


Saturday, October 3, 2015

David Von Pein: The Life and Times of John F. Kennedy, 1964

Liberal Democrat-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Another film about the life of John F. Kennedy our 35th President of the United States. This came out in 1964 less than a year after President Kennedy was assassinated. And he was already pretty popular as president in 1963 when he was killed and if anything he became more popular after he died. Perhaps because of all the questions rising about who killed him and did the assassin, or assassins have help is assassinating him in Dallas, Texas. I believe a lot of Jack Kennedy’s support comes from Hollywood. He was really our first hip president and had he been elected in the 1980s, or even in 1976, he would have been seen as a cool president. President Kennedy, did have same major accomplishments in his short time as president, but most of them had to do with foreign policy.

Jack Kennedy today I believe is both very popular personally, but his policies and politics and what he advocated are very popular in the country. He was a true Social Liberal who believed in both economic and personal freedom, as well as a safety net for people who truly need it. And because of this you even have Republicans who say they support Social Security and Medicare, as well as a public safety net for people who truly need it. JFK believed in a strong defense, but didn’t believe that America should, or could police the world by themselves. And again this is where Americans tend to be. We’re not dovish as a country, or neoconservative when it comes to foreign policy. We want to be able to defend ourselves and help people around the world, but not have to do everything ourselves.

So back in the early 1960s I believe a lot of the reasons for JFK’s popularity had to do with the fact that he was hip and cool. That Hollywood liked him and saw them as one of them, that he had friends in Hollywood. And that he was very different culturally from a lot of the president’s that had come before who were very traditional culturally. JFK also had a beautiful young hip wife in Jackie that the country including Hollywood loved and saw her as royalty. They were ahead of their time culturally in an era that was finally moving away from the 1940s and 1950s and into the 1960s which looked almost completely different as a decade as far as the role of women, how people lived and talked, the types of entertainment that was coming out. And these are I believe big reasons for the popularity of John Kennedy.


Friday, October 2, 2015

The Literary Group: Entertainment Tonight: Double Cross Sam Giancana and Marilyn Monroe, February 17th, 1992

Marilyn & The Chairman of The Board
The Literary Group: Entertainment Tonight: Double Cross Sam Giancana and Marilyn Monroe, February 17th, 1992

The whole point about Marilyn Monroe’s housekeeper being asleep at Marilyn Monroe’s house the night that she died and that she was next door, or down the hall, tells you how bogus (to be nice) the claim that Sam Giancana had anything to do with the death of Marilyn. The housekeeper would have heard a break in, or at least of heard a struggle between Marilyn and the supposed assassin, or assassins. Keep in mind this younger Sam Giancana, is the nephew of the Italian mobster Sam Giancana. So I guess you could say why would young Sam be accusing his own uncle of murdering one of the top Hollywood Goddess’s of all-time? The answer being why not. It wouldn’t be the first time that some has used their famous name to make a lot of money legitimately.

Marilyn Monroe had she been alive today and lets say in her mid, or late thirties with the same personality and physical futures and talents, would be the OMG awesome pop princess, or whatever. She has a lot of fans from this era who look at the world that way. And they have a hard time believing how could anyone that fabulous lets say could take their own life. Which is very hard to believe and I understand that. But if you knew Marilyn and how irresponsible she was and how unhappy she was and the fact that she did have real mental issues and was even committed even at one point, you know she was a mental train wreck waiting to explode. She drank too much and took way too many pills because of how unhappy she was.

I don’t believe Marilyn killed herself intentionally. I’m not implying suicide here, but when you’re drunk as she was that night and you’re unhappy to begin with and you’re taking all sorts of medication at night to try to get you through the day and you take all of those drugs including the alcohol at the same time, very bad things are going to happen to you. Since you’re not completely aware of what you’re doing you end up finally taking too much. She died from an overdose and no one helped her do that. Other than maybe giving her some motivation and reason to feel unhappy. But we’re still not talking about a murder here. One way to look at the death of Marilyn Monroe is to look at what happens to drunk drivers and they get in accidents and kill themselves by accident as a result.