Mal Partisan: Our American Republic- The Federalists

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

Source:The New Democrat 

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

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

From Mal Partisan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:The Washington Post- The Washington Football Factory!

Source:The Daily Review

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

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

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

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

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

Source:The New Democrat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Brookings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Onion: 'Socialism Vs. Capitalism'

Source: The Daily Review Plus- Capitalism & socialism.

Source:The Daily Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:The Daily Review

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

From The Onion

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

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

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

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

From Renegade Reposter

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mal Partisan: ISIS Must be Destroyed, But it Won’t be Easy

Source:Mal Partisan- FNC anchor Shepard Smith.

Source:The New Democrat

For anyone to say that this is just about revenge for what happened in Paris and that I and others are scared that this could happen in Washington, or some other great big American city, I have some questions for you.

One, what are you smoking?

Two, how long have you been high?

Three, is what you’re smoking legal in the United States?

Four, can I have whatever you’re smoking?

This is not about what happened in Paris and seeking revenge. At most Paris was the tipping point and the smoking gun that has now united America with Europe, (there’s an odd couple) together to want to now destroy ISIS. President Obama, called for air strikes against ISIS in Syria, as well as to protect the innocent Syrian people in the late summer of 2013, but neither chamber of Congress would even officially debate that. Or update the Iraq War Resolution to include ISIS. Which I supported as well that is on this blog. ISIS is not new, they’ve been around at least since the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the early summer of 2003 and since the start of the Syrian Civil War.

For anyone who believes in great liberal values that I share like minority rights, protection of women from bad men that would abuse them, freedom to practice, or not practice religion and individual freedom in general, whose not a pacifist, should want to destroy ISIS. Not contain them or want to work with them. If they surrender, that would be one thing, but destroy them and put them completely out of the terrorism business and give Islam back to who it belongs to. Which are peaceful Muslims who go about their everyday business and live their everyday lives.

I’m not calling for some neoconservative unilateral five-hundred-thousand American troop invasion of Syria. To knockout Bashar Al-Assad and is horrible regime and to take out ISIS ourselves. As once we again we try to occupy another Middle Eastern Muslim country. But America has to play its part and at the very least supply the air power while Europe and the Arab League, or Turkey, Iraq and Kurdistan, provide the ground troops to destroy ISIS, as well as the Bashar Al-Assad forces. So a responsible Syrian coalition can take over the government there.

The only way to knockout both ISIS and the Al-Assad regime, is through the air where America has to play a role there. As well as an international ground force on the ground from NATO to pound the Al-Assad and ISIS forces on the ground. This is not about revenge, or even sweet revenge. This is about justice and not just for Paris, but for all the other innocent people who ISIS has murdered. Including Muslims, even though ISIS has the balls to call themselves Muslims. And America has to play its role here, along with Europe, Iraq and Kurdistan, to get this mission accomplished.

The Onion: John Boehner To Paul Ryan: ‘I Was Once Young And Beautiful Too’

Source:The Onion- John Boehner: I'm finally escaping The Nut House!" LOL

Source:The Daily Review

Anyone worried about looking too cute and too young for their age, I got a healthier way to age than to take up tobacco and alcoholism. Try leading a wolf pack of people in government that doesn’t believe in government. Which would be like trying to force some hippie vegetarian to get on a meat lovers diet. Good luck with that with all the frustration will come with it. Sure! New Speaker Paul Ryan at 45, is a young-looking tall handsome Midwestern man who is happily married with kids and has a life outside of the swamp better known as Washington. And right now looks like a man who just won the White House in a landslide. But the German Nazis looked unbeatable until America went to Europe and the British and French got off their pacifist pussy-whipped asses and decided to, “okay! We’ll defend our own country!” And the Nazis actually faced some real competition.

Once Speaker Ryan cuts his first deal with the Senate and perhaps even House Minority Nancy Pelosi, to avoid House Republican led government shutdowns, or with President Obama and agrees to fund the government without the President voluntarily resigning, or impeaching himself, the new young Speaker, will be accused of the worst sinful thing that you can on the Far-Right in America, liberalism! And be accused of working with the Democrats to destroy America. And inviting ISIS in to occupy America. Or completely opening up the Southern border to import millions of Mexicans to take all of our fast food jobs. Or whatever the week long pot high the Far-Right is on and whatever fantasy they’re going through at the time.

Sure! Being Speaker of the House of Representatives, might look like Wisconsin cheeseburgers and freedom fries right now. But wait until Speaker Ryan actually has to do his job and get bills passed that have to be passed for the Federal Government which he is now one of the top leaders of, has to get done for the government, to I don’t know, protect the country from terrorism. You know, little boring details like that. Which he’ll have to get Democratic support for both in the Senate and of course from President Obama. As well as Moderate Republicans both in the House and Senate. Then the new Speaker might wish he was at a Green Bay Packers game and eating a Wisconsin cheeseburger and never want to drink the Tea Party again.

CBS News Democratic Presidential Debate

Source:CBS News- the 2016 Democratic presidential field.

Source:The New Democrat

I believe once again Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, especially when Governor O’Malley was given opportunities to speak, were all sharp in this debate. And Senator Sanders and Governor O’Malley, tried hard to hit Secretary Clinton and landed a few shots. But when you’re each trailing Hillary by thirty plus points in the polls you have to do better than that. You have to win the game going away and put a streak together. Hillary, unlike in 2007-08, knows that she’s not only the frontrunner, but that she’s not inheriting the Democratic nomination for president. That she’s going to have to win it and not expect to win Iowa simply because of her name ID and that she’s a women.

Hillary, took some shots especially from Bernie, but I don’t believe anything happened Saturday night that changes the Democratic race. What Bernie and Marty, (ha, ha! He doesn’t like that!) are showing is that they belong on the same stage as Hillary and are going to make her earn the Democratic nomination. Or one of them will beat her. Bernie hit Hillary about the contributions that she’s getting from Wall Street. Hillary, came back at the Senator and accused him of questioning her integrity. And pointed out that she has a hundred-thousand small contributors. Something that if Governor O’Malley had, he would be in the race right now. Because he’s the Center-Left Progressive alternative to Hillary, who has real executive experience. Not Bernie Sanders, who represents the Far-Left of the Democratic Party. As well as the Green Party and Democratic Socialists USA.

I wrote a piece a couple of weeks ago that is in the Martin O’Malley section of this blog arguing about what should be the message for the Governor of this race. That he should be running as the Progressive With Results, because all the issues that they’re talking about in this race, he’s already accomplished in a very diverse state of over six-million people who has the highest per-capita income in the country and the best schools in the country. Decriminalizing marijuana, additional infrastructure investment, minimum wage increase, legalizing same-sex marriage, Maryland’s economy and bond rating didn’t collapse during the Great Recession and you could add legalizing gambling, which has kept a lot of jobs and money in Maryland. We finally got to hear the Governor make the case for why he should be the Democratic nominee for president. He’s the candidate who accomplishes progressive goals. And just doesn’t talk about what he wants to do.

I believe Senator Sanders, wants to be the next President of the United States, but a big part of his campaign is giving socialism and positive national voice and platform. And he doesn’t want the next president to be a Democratic. Especially someone like Don Trump, or Ted Cruz and he agrees with Hillary Clinton on enough to vote for her over the Republican, or a social democratic third-party candidate. And I think he knows what he’s up against in trying to beat her and is not going to do anything that can actually hurt her in the general election next year. So he’s not going to make this campaign about character and personal attacks. But instead make the best case for himself to be president and see where that takes him.

And I don’t see Bernie right now throwing a lot of long bomb passes at Hillary looking to get back in the game quickly. And the Democratic Party, wants Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States. And until Bernie and Marty O’Malley, make the case that they would be a better presidential candidate than Hillary, this race in the party will never be close. So yeah, Sanders and O’Malley, both hit Hillary with a few shots especially as it relates to Wall Street. But neither one hit her hard enough to change the complexion of this race yet. Which is good for the Democratic Party, because it means assuming she is the nominee, the party will have an excellent opportunity to go into their convention next summer as a united party.

Alfred Hitchcock Presents: The Sorcerer's Apprentice (1961)

Source:Alfred Hitchcock- Diana Dors & David Stewart. Perhaps you can tell for yourself who is who.

Source:The Daily Review

If you’re familiar with the movie Berserk from 1967, The Sorcerer Apprentice should look at least somewhat familiar to you. Diana Dors, is in both films. In Berserk, she plays an assistant to a magician at a circus. In The Sorcerer Apprentice she plays an assistant to a magician at a carnival. In Berserk, she thinks she knows who the killer is. In The Sorcerer, she puts the killer up to killing her husband. In neither film is Diana an angel, she just looks like one in both films. As well as anything else she’s ever done, but that is one of the reasons why she was a great actress. Because she could fool people with her hot baby-face looks and play the killer, or a killer angel as well as it can be played. If you’re familiar with the movie The Unholy Wife, where she tries to frame her husband for killing his best friend, you should have an idea what I’m talking about here.

The Sorcerer Apprentice, looks very entertaining to me, but I’m not sure it is very believable. You have a sick kid (I guess) who should be back in the institution that he escaped from (no joke) who gets picked up off the street by a magician. Who picks him up in real-life and is no trick, (ha hah) who I think can tell this kid is not completely there and is told by the kid that he’s escaped from his home. And decides to take him in anyway instead of reporting him to the proper authorities. (Damn! That sounds corny.) Again Diana, is no angel, she just looks like one and can tell Hugo (the kid) likes her and is attractive to her and she’s cheating on her magical husband (lets say) the magician and wants to move on from him. And tries to put the kid up to killing her husband. The kid is at least 4-5 beers short of s six-pack and thinks this would be fun or something.

You would think this couple having seen this kid and figuring out that he’s not completely there and needs close supervision (to put it mildly) and are less qualified to take care of kids than the guy who freaks out when he finds out that his girlfriend is pregnant with his baby and ditches her, that they could give him a bite to eat, find out where he came from, if not turn him in and move on. But instead they keep him around even though they are too busy to take care of him and probably don’t want to either. But no! That could be too boring for the great Alfred Hitchcock. Instead of making it a boring everyday story, they make a killer out of this gorgeous baby-face wife whose cheating on her husband with a high-wire artist (whose probably scared of heights) and this unfortunate boy. Who perhaps nobody wants to take care of him and has really no one who loves him. Just one example of why Alfred Hitchcock was such a great director.

Rod Willerton: 'Hollywood & the Stars- In Search of Kim Novak'

Source:Rod Willerton- in search of Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak.

Source:The Daily Review

"Hollywood & the Stars was a US TV series broadcast in the 1960's by NBC. This episode studies the life and background of the star, Kim Novak." 

From Rod Willerton 

Kim Novak, is Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield, except that she grew up. She might not be as versatile an entertainer as Marilyn and Jayne when it comes to comedy and music, but physically she's right there with both of them, but she grew up. 

Kim Novak was hot baby-face adorable, sexy blonde goddess, but she grew up and matured and was a woman in Hollywood. Not someone with the body of a woman, but the mind and personality of a teenage girl like Marilyn and Jayne. Who never grew up inside and could never see how valuable and great they could have been as entertainers. And a big reason why they both died in their mid thirties in the 1960s.

It is rare you have an actress that is physically this talented with this body, face and voice, but is also a hell of an actress. Who I believe was a classic real or personal actress where she made all of her characters real and became all of them and brought them to real-life. 

I think what made Kim a great actress is that she made her acting look so real. She literally became the person she was playing and made it look like she wasn't acting at all. And I think a lot of that had to do with the fact that she tended to play characters who she had a lot in common with. Who were physically gorgeous, sexy, and very cute, but lacked self-confidence and not quite sure they belong where they were, or even knew that they wanted to be there at all. Playing Madeline in Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo, is a perfect example of that.

Kim, has also played characters that were gorgeous, sexy, and adorable, but knew exactly who they were and what they wanted. Like in Boys Night Out, where she plays Cathy, who was a college student doing an article on the middle-age married man in New York. 

The other thing that I respect about Kim Novak is that acting wasn't who she was, but what she did. Similar to Ava Gardner, she didn't live to act, but acted to live the lifestyle that she wanted. She didn't need to be a star, but happened to be really good at what she did and was a goddess as well which made her a star. 

Kim would have been perfectly comfortable living on the water in Northern California her whole adult life just as long as she could afford to do that. Which is where her acting career came in, but didn't need to be an actress to be happy. She is truly special and I just wish she acted more.

Greg Engle: Bryan Adams- A Veterans Day Tribute: Tribute to All Men & Women Who've Defended America

Source:Greg Engle- Happy Veterans Day!

Source:The Daily Review

"Veterans Day tribute from a vet to all veterans"

From Greg Engle

Source:Greg Engle- Happy Veterans Day!

I don’t want to say Veterans Days has more meaning today that it twenty years ago, because of course that isn’t true, but I do believe it does have more feeling and appreciation today than it did in lets say 1994-95. Because America has essentially been at war for good and bad for twenty years now. Starting in the Balkans in 1995 and really never leaving there for the rest of the decade to prevent ethnic-Bosniaks and ethnic-Albanians from being victims of an ethnic genocide from Serbians in the former Yugoslavia.

We go from the Balkans, to the Middle East, in the early 2000s and we’re still there fourteen years later in both Afghanistan and Iraq. So Americans I believe have felt Veterans Day and Memorial Day more often in the last twenty years, because almost all of us probably is related to a U.S. military veteran, or knows one. And probably knows someone whose died in combat, or suffered a major injury. Again so others wouldn’t have to do that and to protect innocent people oversees who the average American has never even heard of.

Veterans Day, is the last holiday you want run and dominated by pop culture celebrities. This is a day you don’t want people to take advantage of and use it to make it look like they stand with the troops and are cool. Veterans Days, is as real as a holiday as we have in this country. Arguably the most important day other than Independence Day and Memorial Day. These are truly American holidays that just don’t affect the people who’ve been willing to be severely injured and die so their fellow serviceman wouldn’t be hurt or killed, but to defend America’s freedom.

They haven’t fought for a prize, or to win free tickets to Disneyland, or Hawaii, but for their fellow serviceman and their country. So we wouldn’t have to fight for them. People who could have stayed home and made a lot of money in the private sector, but instead decided to put their lives on the line and risk never seeing their families again so others wouldn’t have to do that as well. Veterans Day, is as real as it gets. It just doesn’t affect our veterans, but their families as well. Their spouses, their kids, who perhaps have had to grow up without their fathers, or mothers and their parents. Why, because so others wouldn’t have to make those ultimate sacrifices as well.

So when you celebrate Veterans Day today and millions of us will all sorts of ways in America as well as oversees and you personally know a veteran, make sure you not only thank them, but make your thanks as real and as genuine as their service to their country and yours. Make sure you not only show appreciation to the veteran and veterans, but their families as well who’ve sacrificed almost as much as the veteran as well and in many cases never had a say in the matter. Thank them for giving you the opportunity just to celebrate Veterans Day and the millions of Americans who have fought for our great country so we could celebrate living in it.

Joshua Waimberg: 'Schenck v. United States: Defining The Limits of Free Speech'

Source: U.S. Constitution Center- U.S. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Source:The New Democrat

"Note: Landmark Cases, a C-SPAN series on historic Supreme Court decisions—produced in cooperation with the National Constitution Center—continues on Monday, Nov. 2 at 9pm ET. This week’s show features Schenck v. United States.

In a case that would define the limits of the First Amendment’s right to free speech, the Supreme Court decided the early 20th-century case of Schenck v. United States.

The case began, as many do, with an act of Congress. Shortly after the United States entered into World War I, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917. It was passed with the goals of prohibiting interference with military operations or recruitment, preventing insubordination in the military, and preventing the support of hostile enemies during wartime." 

You can read the rest of this article at the National Constitution Center. 

"Do you have an absolute right to free speech? The Supreme Court gives it 1919 answer.

 Learn the basics about the must-know US History Supreme Court Case challenging the constitutionality of the Espionage Act. If you are in a US History course you best be knowing this case. Trust me." 

Source:Keith Hughes- on, well perhaps you can figure out the rest yourself.

From Keith Hughes

I’m not a lawyer, which is probably as obvious as Ayn Rand wasn’t a Socialist, but I bet a good lawyer who is sane, sober and awake at the time, could make a damn good case that the military draft is unconstitutional. 

Forcing Americans to fight for causes they not only don’t believe in, but didn’t voluntarily sign up for, looks unconstitutional to me, at least from the outside looking in as a non-lawyer. It is one thing if you decide to join the military and get an assignment to do a mission you don’t believe in. But it is completely another to force people to not only be part of the military, fight for the military and then fight for causes they don’t believe in.

Of course you have to complete missions once you’re already in the military because you signed up for that. And soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen, can’t pick and choose what missions they accept, or not. The military couldn’t function properly that way. But to force someone to not only give up their personal and even economic freedom, (at least to a certain extent) and then yank them away from their family and community, force them to fight for you and fight for a cause they don’t believe in, sounds like a violation of an American’s personal freedom and constitutional rights there.

As far as this case here: Charles Schenck, was a noted Socialist in the United States in the early 20th Century. The Leader of the Socialist Party in America and a solid anti-war activist, which Democratic Socialists at least tend to be. And what he was doing in this case was protesting strongly against a war that he didn’t believe in as someone who wasn’t a member of the U.S. Military. It would be one thing if he was in the military and he was actively and publicly protesting against a war that he agreed to be part of by signing up for the Military. But he was a private citizen here protesting against the World War I draft and the war itself.

Charles Schenck actively and publicly opposing the World War I draft, would tell people what he thought about it and the war and encourage Americans to oppose the draft as well. This looks like a clear First Amendment case here with an American opposing a war that he was obviously against and had every right to do so. 

The U.S. Supreme Court, has made plenty of bad rulings over the years and this one is probably not in the top ten. Especially when you’re talking about cases that involved Japanese, German and Italian-Americans, being held in deferment camps during World War II, simply because of their ethnicity. But this is one of their worst First Amendment rulings.

Reelz Channel: The Kennedys- The Story Behind the Story

Source:Reelz Channel- Greg Kinnear as JFK.

Source:The Daily Review

It is Joe Kennedy Sr. who made The Kennedy Family the political family and political dynasty that it was and to a certain extent still today. He came from nothing being a son of poor Irish immigrants. Who worked his way up and became very successful on Wall Street and decided that he wanted to get involved in government and even at some point become President of the United States. And got as far up as United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom and when he his career as a future presidential candidate came to an end at the start of World War II with his comments about Germany and that he didn’t see Nazi Germany as a threat. It’s then that he decides that one of his sons is going to accomplish what he couldn’t for him. Which was to become President of the United States. Which started with his son Joe and got up to Ted in the 1960s.

Joe Kennedy, made the Kennedy Family what it was politically with his money. And that he had three really smart and charming sons who all liked politics once they got in them, but perhaps do not get in them and certainly not as far had their father not pushed them the way he did. Jack, Bob and Ted. Joe Sr., originally wanted his son Joe to be the first presidential candidate and serve in Congress and government and everything else, but he died during World War II. So the next inline who also served in World War II, but survived the war was Jack and Joe pushed Jack to get into politics almost as soon as he got back from the war in 1945. JFK, is first elected to Congress in the House of Representatives in 1946 and then elected to the Senate in 1952. And writes a best-selling book Profiles in Courage which is what puts him on the national scene in the Democratic Party.

Joe Sr., is the key player in the Kennedy Family. The general manager and perhaps even president of a great political franchise, The Kennedy’s. But his son Jack is the one that is able to give his father what he wants. And Irish-Catholic President of the United States. Because he was such a handsome charming likable intelligent guy, who gave great speeches, great sense of humor. A great Center-Left Liberal who wanted to win the Cold War, free millions of Americans from poverty, by expanding economic freedom. Free millions of African-Americans from government sponsored racial discrimination, have the first man on the Moon be an American and everything else. And we have seen a national Democratic politician at least, this great since. As far as how many Americans loved the man. And the Kennedy mini-series I believe does a great job of showing all these aspects about this family in their series.
Source:Reelz Channel

Third Way: Ready For The New Economy

Source:Third Way-

Source:The New Democrat

The Democratic economic agenda for 2016 needs to be both different and better than the Republican economic agenda. (assuming either party offers one) For Democrats to retain the presidency and do well in Congress. Which means at the very least picking up a bunch of seats in the House with high Democratic voter turnout and winning back the Senate. 24-34 Senate seats that will be up next year will all be Republican seats. Democrats might be able to put twelve of those in play. A good Republican year in the Senate will be to have a small Senate majority in the next Congress, even if its 51-49. The economy, especially jobs and economic growth, will be the number one issue next year. Republicans, will probably want to talk about national security, especially the Middle East though. Democrats, would be smart to make it all about the economy and how they can help create good jobs.

Democrats, shouldn’t go soft on the economy with some mushy-middle approach that tries to please everyone at the same time, but instead pisses everyone off. And instead gives people the message that they’re saying different things to different voters. (Speaking out of two mouths with one face) They shouldn’t sound Republican light and primarily just concentrate on taxes and regulations. They shouldn’t sound like Democratic Socialists (no offense Bernie Sanders) and offer a new Federal program to solve everyone’s problems for them. Or an expansion of new Federal programs. And claiming that all the government services will be free, when of course they won’t be. And either middle class taxpayers will get stuck with the bills in new taxes, or higher interest rates in new debt.

This is where both Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley (they would make a hell of a Democratic national ticket) can step up and go straight to Middle-America and middle class Americans and Americans struggling to get to the middle class with an economic agenda for them.

By empowering small business’s to increase their business’s and higher more workers. Empower people who are struggling financially to further their education and create their own new small business. With an expansion of the small business loans and higher education tax credits, childcare vouchers, especially for low-income, low-skilled workers with kids.

A new national infrastructure plan, like a National Infrastructure Bank, that would be a new independent corporation that would be self-financed, because it would prioritize new infrastructure projects and bring in private sector investors to invest in them. As well as new national energy independence plan that invests in all of our national energy resources so we can get off of foreign oil all together and perhaps within twenty years get off of oil and gas all together, foreign, or domestic. That would create millions of new jobs along with the infrastructure investment.

Comprehensive immigration reform, that brings new high-skilled workers and low-skilled workers to do the jobs that Americans won’t do. That brings the 10-15 millions illegal immigrants out of the shadows and makes income taxpayers out of them. Which would help bring down the budget deficits of all levels of government. Along with the fines and back taxes they would have to pay for coming to America illegally. New trade agreements that get more American products in foreign countries with low tariffs, so we can see Ford’s, GM’s, Chrysler’s, in Europe and Japan and other American products. In exchange low tariffs on foreign products here that would create good American jobs.

I hate this idea, that even the so-called Third Way pushes that if you’re on the Left and you’re liberal or progressive and if you’re on the Right and you’re conservative, that somehow you’re a radical, or something. And that all the good ideas are in the mushy-middle. Its called the mushy-middle for a good reason, Centrists tend to sound like mush. People who aren’t sure what they believe and tend to combine ideas from both sides in one package and talk out of two mouths with one face. When Liberal and Progressives, talk about positive government and smart government, which is what Governor Martin O’Malley is all about and using government to empower people who are struggling like with the ideas that I already put down, Democrats win. Because Americans tend to believe in the same things. When we sound like Soft Republicans, or tax and spend Socialists, we lose. Because Americans tend not to be that Far-Left and would rather have Real Republicans over Soft Republicans.

History: Marilyn Monroe Is Found Dead (8/05/1962)

Source:History- Hollywood Babydoll Marilyn Monroe (1926-62)

Source:The Daily Review 

"On August 5, 1962, movie actress Marilyn Monroe is found dead in her home in Los Angeles. She was discovered lying nude on her bed, face down, with a telephone in one hand. Empty bottles of pills, prescribed to treat her depression, were littered around the room. After a brief investigation, Los Angeles police concluded that her death was “caused by a self-administered overdose of sedative drugs and that the mode of death is probable suicide.” 

From History 

"How did a star whose persona seemed to be all about childlike joy and eternally vibrant sexuality die, single and childless, at the age of 36? In fact, the circumstances of Marilyn Monroe’s death are confusing and disputed. In this episode we will explore the last five years of her life, including the demise of her relationship with Arthur Miller, the troubled making of The Misfits, and Marilyn’s aborted final film, and try to sort out the various facts and conspiracy theories surrounding her death." 

Source:You Must Remember This- Hollywood Babydoll Marilyn Monroe

From You Must Remember This

Source:The Daily Review- Hollywood Babydoll Marilyn Monroe (1926-62)

This might sound disrespectful and I don't mean it to be, but I've always seen Marilyn Monroe as a teenage girl, if not younger. As an overly adorable and not just baby-faced adorable, but with a voice and face to match. 

Beautiful teenage girls, have a tendency to lack self-confidence, because they see beautiful women in Hollywood and think they are not as good as those women, so they must not be good enough. And deal with depression and self-confidence issues and perhaps mess around with drugs.

I just described Marilyn Monroe as a thirty-six year old early middle-aged woman who had now been an adult for almost twenty-years. I think if she had just bothered to grow up personally and perhaps got constructive help for her self-esteem issues, she could definitely be alive today. And probably at least makes it to her eighties. 

Marilyn was a woman was thirty-six when she died, who probably had another 20-25 years as a gorgeous and even baby-faced goddess with a great body. Barbara Eden, now 81, is still gorgeous and cute as a baby. Raquel Welch, 75, still too cute a hot to play a bad girl.

Healthy, responsible, mature women, who know who they are and at least like themselves, because they know what they have and that they have real value, don't drink themselves to sleep every and spend night after night alone and consume all of the medication that Marilyn Monroe consumed in the last few years of their lives. Especially if they're in the entertainment business, because their career means so much to them and love to entertain and to work and that success affords them to live the great lifestyle that they do.

We're not talking about the incredible short life of Marilyn Monroe, had she simply lived a responsible life. And could see what blind people could see. That she was this hot,  sexy, goddess, who was also one of the best entertainers of her generation. And she lived a normal life in years, would have been one of the best entertainer of all-time. Someone who might have still been entertaining her eighties. Which is what Ellen Burstyn at 82 is still doing today. But we were all denied that opportunity to see that.