Monday, October 29, 2012

CBS News: Bulletin- JFK Assassination Coverage :11/22/1963

Source:Britanica- with a newspaper article about the JFK assassination.

Source:The Daily Press 

"Assassination of John F. Kennedy, mortal shooting of John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States, as he rode in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. His accused killer was Lee Harvey Oswald, a former U.S. Marine who had embraced Marxism and defected for a time to the Soviet Union. Oswald never stood trial for murder, because, while being transferred after having been taken into custody, he was shot and killed by Jack Ruby, a distraught Dallas nightclub owner." 

From Britannica 

"This video footage from the late morning - early afternoon of Nov. 22nd 1963 was taped live from CBS. As is often the case with such events, the initial reports prove to be the most accurate... 
Source:CBS News- longtime anchor Walter Cronkite, about to announce the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

CBS News had just gotten the word from either one of their correspondents that President John F. Kennedy had died from bullet wounds that he received from the assassin that shot him in Dallas, Texas, on this horrible November day in 1963. And their number one news anchor and the number one news anchor Walter Cronkite was about to announce it and was emotional in doing that.

Source:CBS News- longtime anchor Walter Cronkite, about to announce the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

You hate to have something like a presidential assassination, or any assassination really have to be the test of the quality of your news coverage or not. But unfortunately greatness only tends to come in times of tragedy and when you’re tested. Times of war and being under attacked, when riots are going on, a death in the family, someone being out of work like your father, or another close relative and you don’t know what the future is going to look like and you fear for it. But unfortunately that is how humans tend to operate. When we’re not tested we tend to be somewhat lax and go back to our everyday normal activities.

And I think our network coverage from CBS News, perhaps especially as they were our biggest news operation back then and NBC News and even the much smaller ABC News, they were all really tested without precedent in how you cover a tragedy like this. 

No precedent in how you cover a presidential, or any other assassination in the electronic age of broadcast news and network news. All they had is the training and resources that they had to work with when. Which was make sure their people are on the story and getting the information needed and make sure the network executives are giving you the network air time to cover the story.

The JFK assassination is not the only reason why Walter Cronkite is America’s newsman and why we haven’t seen a network news anchor as good since. But it is certainly a reason, because you really got to see how professional and great he was and had to be and couldn’t afford any mistakes. 

You also got to see his human side especially when he announced the death of President John F. Kennedy. And you got to see how hard of an announcement it was for him to make. 

Cronkite, personally knew Jack Kennedy and personally liked him. So it must have been announcing the death of one of your friends on live on national TV. With millions of people watching you and he did it as well as it could’ve been done.

Friday, October 26, 2012

VOA News: Ethan Chorrin- 'What Next for Libya'


Source:VOA News- "Voice of America (VOA) is a U.S.[1] multimedia agency which serves as the United States government institution for non-military, external broadcasting. It is the largest U.S. international broadcaster. VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 47 languages which it distributes to affiliate stations around the globe. It is primarily viewed by foreign audiences, so VOA programming has an influence on public opinion abroad regarding the United States and its people." 

From Wikipedia


After the murder of U S Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, Libya, will Western governments "respond by disengaging, retreating or focusing only on the extirpation of radical elements?" That's the question asked by Ethan Chorin in a New York Times op-ed.  He's author of a new book "Exit the Colonel"  about the Libyan revolution and the last days of Moammar Gadhafi.

GUEST: Ethan Chorin: Author of the book, "Exit the Colonel." 

From VOA News

At risk of sounding corny, this is not the time to abandon Libya. Yes, the United States lost an Ambassador there and that of course is a tragedy, but that wasn't a result of the Libyan Government that now has a responsible government, but the fact that America didn't have adequate security there for the embassy. And the fact that the Libyan Government doesn't have adequate security yet, to avoid tragedies like this. 

What Libya needs now is for  America and Europe, as well as the Arab League to continue to work with the Libyan Government to help them get that economy going and give them military aid, as well as governmental aid so they can build up their government so Libya has the resources to able to govern and protect itself, so we can avoid tragedies there again. 

The last thing that Libya and the West needs is to see a failed State in a country thats as physically large as Libya and to see Libya become a terrorist state.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

ABC News: Good Morning America: 'Gas Prices in America Expected to Plunge After Reaching Record Highs'

Source:ABC News- with a piece on gas prices in America.

"Mark Greenblatt reports lower prices at the pump are expected soon." 

From ABC News

A couple reasons why gas prices have been volatile, going up and down, mostly up lately, have to do with the economy going up and down and we are importing a lot of foreign oil. If we produced more of our own energy, across the board including in oil and gas, we could bring down our gas prices and keep them down, because we would be able to produce all of the energy that we would need to power our economy and country. We already produce plenty of energy on our own, but we could be doing a lot more with all the natural resources that this, huge, vast, great country, of 315 million people, that we have. 

Friday, October 19, 2012

ACLU: 'A Victory For Love: Federal Appeals Court Declares DOMA Unconstitutional'

Source:ACLU- Edith Windsor talking about her Federal court case.

"On October 18, 2012, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) unconstitutionally discriminates against married same-sex couples. The law had been challenged by Edith "Edie" Windsor, who sued the federal government for failing to recognize her marriage to her partner Thea Spyer, after Spyer's death in 2009. Windsor and Spyer, a couple of 44 years, were married in Canada in 2007 and were considered married by their home state of New York." 


The so-called Defense of Marriage Act (which is really just the stop gay people from marrying act) is clearly unconstitutional. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why President Bill Clinton signed this damn law in 1996, other than that the 1990s were a little different from what they are today and even the 2000s politically and culturally and President Clinton wanted to get reelected and was worried that if he vetoed this law, it would hurt him with Independents. 

I'm not a lawyer, (obviously) but DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. And supporters of this law would say that gays don't have a constitutional right to get married. Well, neither do straights and at least lawyers on the Christian-Right movement, already know that. 

DOMA not only violates the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, because it creates two classes of Americans, gays and straights and says under law and according to the U.S. Government, straight people are more deserving of their constitutional rights, than gay people. Which is also clearly unconstitutional.

Slate Magazine: 'Romney Boys Can't Contain Their Obama Debate Anger'

Source:Slate Magazine- Meet The Romney Family.
Source:The Daily Press

"The exchanges weren't the only things getting heated at Tuesday night's presidential debate. Two of Mitt Romney's sons got a little hot under the collar watching their dad spar with the president.

Asked on a radio how he felt when Obama called his dad a liar, Romney's eldest son Tagg said he wanted to "rush down to the stage and take a swing at him." Tagg also took issue with the president's campaign trying "to do everything they can to turn my dad into someone he's not," which seems like a tall order considering Romney himself has a habit of shifting where he stands. 

The Romney sons' aggression didn't stop there: Tagg's brother, Josh, was seen giving the president a death stare during the debate, and that spawned a mini-meme.  Menacing maybe, but hardly enough for the Secret Service to get involved."

Not the most loving and respectful men of the presidency. The Romney Boys, they seem more like thugs working for their father. They seem to want to do what their father other than in the first presidential debate what their father couldn’t do, which is to beat up President Obama, or at least beat him somewhere. 

I mean Mitt, clearly wins the first debate and is still clearly trailing the President in the Electoral College, despite now being neck-in-neck with the President in the popular vote. Mitt, doesn’t look like a winner right now, but someone whose trying to find any place where he can win. So he’s not the Mike Dukakis of the GOP. Someone who badly loses a presidential election that he should have won.

It’s hard to hear negative facts about your father especially in a political campaign. Especially when those facts are about one’s lack of experience, knowledge, judgement, honesty, and even credibility. The Romney Sons, might know who Dad is, but the problem is their Dad won’t let the rest of the country know. Because he keeps turning into someone else depending on what office he’s running for, what year he’s running and the people he feels he needs to have supporting him. 

Mitt is Moderate Mitt in Massachusetts, he’s Religious Conservative Mitt in 2007 when he’s going for the Christian-Right in Iowa and South Carolina. And now he’s the businessman with results, even though as Governor of Massachusetts, he had a weak jobs record. And laid off a lot of people as a businessman.

Who is Mitt Romney and what do you believe in? Would be my question to him if I ever interviewed him. But I would be carrying a whole notepad of paper, or perhaps my laptop waiting for ten different answers to the same questions. As he’s telling us every different position he has on the same issue. And doing that for each issue. 

Americans are funny this way in that we like our presidential candidates to tell us who they are and what they believe with some consistency before we decide who we’re going to vote for, not after. I guess we’re just stubborn that way and don’t have much faith in coin flipping when it comes to choosing our political leaders. But we’re into finger flipping when it comes to political leaders that we don’t like. As Mitt knows all too well right now.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

The Hill: Alexander Bolton: 'Democratic Senate Hopefuls in Red States Wrestle With Threat From President Obama'

Source:The Hill- reporter Alexander Bolton.

"Democrats running for Senate in red states have deployed various tactics to fend off the biggest threat to their campaigns: the unpopularity of President Obama at home.

Democrats with the toughest races have been the most vocal in criticizing Obama, who has seen his poll ratings slump since squaring off against Mitt Romney in the first debate.

{mosads}Some are following a strategy adopted by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who is cruising to a victory despite representing a state where Obama is trailing Romney by as many as 21 points. Manchin established independence among voters early on by forcefully criticizing the president — sometimes verging on bashing Obama. Manchin has gone so far as to refuse to say whether he will vote for Obama.

Other Democrats have employed this strategy to varying degrees.

Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D), who faces an uphill battle to win his old seat in Nebraska, has slammed Obama for releasing details about the classified mission to kill Osama bin Laden.

President Obama losing big in some of these Red States, are the biggest threat right now to Senate Democrats. Losing the Senate, States like Nebraska to use as an example, with Democrat Bob Kerry but Senator Kerry could win that State on his own. Because they like and trust him more then his opponent, as well as Senator Kerry being known in Nebraska.

Kerrey said he has “significant disagreements” with the president.

During a recent visit to a VFW Post 3606 in Lincoln, Neb., Kerrey said, “I think the president committed terrible mistakes” and cited the leaks from bin Laden raid, according to the Omaha World-Herald.

Robynn Tysver, a reporter for the World-Herald who covers Kerrey’s race against Republican Deb Fischer, said when Kerrey mentions Obama’s name, it is often in a critical context.

“Usually he does it to criticize, to find himself someway to contrast himself with Obama,” she said.

Kerrey recently changed his stance on cap-and-trade, one of the biggest legislative priorities of Obama’s first term, and now opposes it. Kerrey said he realized the plan to restrict carbon emissions would not work after studying problems it spawned in Europe.

Romney has led Obama by 12 to 17 percentage points in recent surveys of Nebraska voters.

In Indiana, Rep. Joe Donnelly (D), who is in a dead-heat race against Richard Mourdock, recently called out Obama for slow-walking approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.

“I think the president is wrong. I have been a strong supporter of that project for a long time,” he told the editorial board of the Palladium-Item in Richmond, Ind., earlier this month. “It will produce additional fuel for our region, create thousands of jobs and I think it is a national security issue.”

He contrasted himself from the president by suggesting every federal department head cut his or her budget by 10 percent. Obama has stressed raising taxes on the nation’s wealthiest families to shrink the deficit.

Mourdock regularly links Donnelly to Obama by citing Donnelly’s support for the 2010 Affordable Care Act and votes to increase the debt limit.

Unlike Manchin, Donnelly has said he will vote for Obama — though he has not committed to voting for Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for Senate majority leader.

“Joe is not concerned about party politics, as he would rather focus on what’s best for Indiana. He has said repeatedly that, just as with President Bush, he will support President Obama when it makes sense for Indiana and oppose him when it doesn’t,” said Elizabeth Shappell, a spokeswoman for Donnelly’s campaign.

Romney led Obama by 12 and 13 percentage points in two recent Indiana polls.

Former President Bill Clinton traveled to Indianapolis earlier this month to campaign for Donnelly but Obama has not stumped or raised money for him, according to Donnelly’s campaign.

In Montana, Sen. Jon Tester (D) tried the unusual move of tying his Republican opponent, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R), to Obama, who trails Romney by 8 to 11 percentage points in the state.

Tester linked Rehberg to Obama during a recent debate for supporting free-trade agreements favored by the president.

“Barack Obama supported all of those trade agreements. It sounds like you stood with President Obama much of the time,” he said at a debate at the Montana State University Billings campus.

A central talking point of Rehberg’s campaign is the claim that Tester votes with Obama 95 percent of the time. Tester has disputed that statistic as “crazy.”

Tester aired an ad over the summer highlighting the issues where he has disagreed with Obama, including the federal bailout of the financial sector, the federal bailout of the auto industry and the removal of gray wolves from protection under the Endangered Species Act.

But Tester, who has a smoother path to election than Kerrey or Donnelly, has also defended Obama. He has praised him for “taking care of Osama bin Laden” and “doing some things in the Middle East to take care of the War on Terrorism in a big, big way.”

David Parker, an associate professor of political science at Montana State University who is working on a book about the race, said Tester has urged the EPA not to create new regulations for agricultural dust and opposed proposed administration rules restricting child labor on farms.

Parker said Republicans see Obama as one of Tester’s major vulnerabilities.

“That’s why they’re pursuing the line of argument that they are and it certainly looks like Romney will win the state. If voters go to the poll and vote straight ticket, that will hurt Tester,” he said, noting that Montana voters have a history of ticket splitting.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) was one of Obama’s earliest and strongest supporters in his contest against Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.

She has had a hot-and-cold public relationship with him in recent months. In June, she expressed frustration that Obama did not plan to campaign in Missouri, hoping the Obama campaign’s voter turnout operation would energize voters in St. Louis and Kansas City, Mo.

A year ago, McCaskill skipped a fundraiser Obama held in St. Louis and this summer missed the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, where he was nominated for a second term.

In August, she emphasized her willingness to confront Obama during an interview with Bloomberg News, telling a reporter: “I can be stubbornly independent and hard to get along with about things I care about and I’m proud of that.”

McCaskill voted for Obama’s most controversial initiatives, including the 2009 stimulus package and the 2010 healthcare reform law.

On the campaign trail, she touts her disagreement with Obama over the Keystone XL pipeline and her efforts to slow the administration’s proposed environmental regulations.

“She hopes to run ahead of Obama in the state. That’s the critical consideration here,” said Steven S. Smith, director of the Weidenbaum Center and professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis.

Smith said McCaskill has to be careful not to criticize Obama harshly because she needs the Democratic base energized. He said she needs solid support from Democrats to focus on centrist voters before Election Day.

“She needs somewhere between 5 and 9 percent of the voters who are otherwise going to go for Romney,” he said. “It really is a difficult balancing act.” 

From The Hill 

Yes, President Barack Obama is unpopular in deep red states. That's as obvious as it snows in Greenland and Iceland during the winter. We're talking about a man whose the first African-American President in American history, who the Far-Right has successfully, at least in these states, has portrayed him a Muslim Socialist and perhaps even illegal immigrant. 

But what these red state Democrats have going for themselves, are themselves, since none of them are left-wing Democrats and all have the Congressional records to prove that, as well as their opponents, who even see rape as a good thing, like in Indiana and Missouri. So in a normal election, even if President Obama is reelected, Democrats should lose the Senate. But there' nothing very normal about 2012. 

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Associated Press: Warren Levinson- 'US Housing Construction Jumps to 4-year High'

Source:Associated Press- American construction.

"U.S. builders started construction on homes in September at the fastest rate since July 2008 and made plans to build even more homes in the coming months. The gains show the housing recovery is strengthening and could help the economy grow. (Oct. 17)" 

From Associated Press

Just another indicator that the economy is moving, with how the construction industry is moving and we'll probably see a jump in economic growth at the end of the year as a result and something like the American Jobs Act and a 5-10 year investment from the Federal Government as well as private sector, to rebuild the country. 

100-200B$ a year thats paid for in this venture, would complete a lot of much need work in our public infrastructure and put millions of Americans back to work rebuilding this country and we would see a big boost in economic growth as a result. 

This is something that the President wants to do, I just wish he would take the time to do it in one of these debates, because it would go a long way in laying out for the country what his second term would look like and why he should be reelected and is something that Mitt Romney wouldn't be able to counter him, probably call it nothing more then some new big spending program, when its not, its really about economic growth, that the Federal Government would invest part in, but not actually run the program.

Slate Magazine: Mitt Romney- 'Binders Full of Women Meme to Take Over The World'

Source:Slate Magazine- binders full of Hilary?

Source:The Daily Press

"The most substantive moments of last night's presidential debate may have been President Obama and Mitt Romney's heated exchanges over Libya and energy policy. But the Internet has its own favorite: Romney's pronouncement that he was given "binders full of women" to fill jobs in his cabinet when he was governor of Massachusetts. That came in response to a question about the glass ceiling and gender bias in pay.   

Before the debate even ended, a meme had sprouted on social media. Within minutes, a Tumblr account appeared, with crowd-sourced parody images that included Hillary Clinton, an '80s teen idol, and Beyoncé. By this morning, the Facebook community "Binders Full of Women" had more than 250,000 members.

In a debate full of curious phrasing, why did Romney's binders comment stand out? Slate's Amanda Marcotte wrote that the inelegant phrase resonated because it underlined Romney's "utter unwillingness to address the true causes of inequality."  

Is Mitt Romney capable of getting through an appearance, debate or otherwise, without making a gaffe? Or maybe these so-called gaffes aren’t gaffes and he actually believes in this, let's say garbage and it just slipped out. Does Mitt even at this point where he’s clearly trailing in big Republican states like Florida, Virginia and Ohio (where he needs to win at least two of those states in order to win the presidency) even want to be president? Or is he writing a new book, perhaps political manual on how not to run for president if you want to win. The title of the book actually being: “Mitt Romney’s: How Not to Run For President.” Maybe he’s hoping he can get Congress even with a Democratic Senate in it, to repeal the 19th Amendment that guarantees all American women the right to vote. And with that he wouldn’t have to bother campaigning for female voters.

I imagine when it comes to life in general and in business, Mitt Romney is a tall, handsome, young-looking (for a Baby Boomer) intelligent, good man. But when it comes to politics, he must have slept in when God was handing out political brains. I haven’t seen a national politician this weak when it comes to appealing to average voters since George H.W. Bush in 1992. When he didn’t know the price of milk and his own Vice President miss spells potato. And this is probably because President Bush hadn’t been to a grocery store and bought his own groceries in over twenty-years at that point. 

If I’m a woman (and no I’m not looking for a sex change) am I supposed to feel good about Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women”? Or should I take that as a guy who probably watches too much Cinemax late at night, because he can’t sleep, because from all the coffee he drinks on the campaign trail?

As a presidential candidate, Mitt Romney is a gunslinger who always has his gun pointed at his feet and forgets turn the safety off. I don’t know how the man walks around anymore having shot off so many of his own toes. He barely beats a man who wants to take America back to 1955 in a national time machine where women weren’t supposed to work and perhaps even vote. Where gays were locked in prison cells and mental institutions, as well as closets. That being Rick Santorum of course and is now running against a President who struggles to hit fifty-percent when it comes to his own popularity. With high unemployment and weak economic growth. 

Mitt finds himself trailing in several big Republican states that he has to win, to a President who struggles to get to 50% approval. I mean is Mitt Romney really all the Republican Party has to offer for president? And is this the best they have? 

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

National Geographic: Prison Nation

Source:National Geographic- Prison Nation.

"With gangs and violence running our prisons, are inmates even more dangerous when they are released?" 

Most prison departments in America (Federal & State) are called something like the Department of Corrections or the Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation. I'm all for punishing convicted felons in America in prison. The number one job that any prison has is to punish convicted felons, especially violent felons, and violent felons that represent serious threats to any free society and are serving long-term sentences. But that punishment should only start at taking their freedom away. 

Once someone is in prison, how they serve their sentence and spend their time, should be completely up to them. They get with the program, follow the rules, their prison sentence should be productive and if anything beneficial, even if they're serving life without any possibility of parole, because they would have the opportunity to give back to society, even while in prison. 

But if prison inmates don't get with the program and just try to continue their criminal careers while behind bars, those are the inmates that the prison has to come down hard on. At that point, it's no longer just about taking their freedom away from society. But you need to take their freedom away in prison as well, so the staff can be as safe as possible, but the inmates as well who just want to serve their sentences so they can get out and not come back to prison. 

2/3 of all prion inmates are not just released, but end up back in prison. Which again gets to my original point about the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. You want less crime on the streets, let's have fewer inmates who break the law not just while inside, but in society once they're free from prison. Which is why we have to have things like education, counseling, job training, and real work for prison inmates where they can even make real money legitimately while in prison, so they have the skills that they need to live in a free society and be productive and not have to break the law to support themselves and end up back in prison at taxpayer expense.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Associated Press: University of Texas President- 'Diversity Benefits Us All'

Source:Associated Press- The President of the University of Texas, speaking about the decision.
"Supreme Court justices questioned the University of Texas' use of race in admissions in a case that could lead to new limits on affirmative action. The plaintiff in the case, Abigail Fisher, and the university's president spoke to reporters. (Oct. 10)"

From Associated Press

To me affirmative action is about equal protection under the law. Which is a core part of our Constitution. That all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity or gender, are entitled to the same protections under the law. Meaning that people in this country can't be denied access or rights because of their race, ethnicity or gender, that we can't be denied a job, housing or college, because of our race, ethnicity or gender, meaning the public or private sector. That no one regardless of race, ethnicity or gender can be turned down from these things, because of their race, ethnicity or gender.

Which gets into  my problem with affirmative action: if affirmative action was solely about recruitment, making sure that all Americans, especially people who come from underdeveloped backgrounds, in other words grew up in poverty and we as a society were going to reach out to these people, to let them know the benefits of getting a good education and a good job and so-forth, then I would not only have a problem with it, but I would also be in favor of it. But thats not what affirmative action is about.

The other part of affirmative action, is literally denying people an education or a job, because of their race, that there are too many of a certain race of people here and they can't accept anymore of that race at this time. Even if you are more qualified for the spot than the person or people we are considering for it right now. And to me as a non-lawyer that strikes me as unconstitutional on its face.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

ABC News: Nightline- Bill Weir: 'Melrose Place Cast Reunion'

Source:ABC News- the cast of Fox's Melrose Place.

Source:The Daily Press

"Amanda, Kimberly and Billy, the stars of the hit '90s TV drama, discuss their favorite moments."

From ABC News 

I only caught the last couple seasons of Melrose Place, because at first I thought the writing was kinda cheesy. And I’m not a big fan of soap operas to begin with, but I was flipping around one Monday night, in I believe 1997, looking for something to watch before Monday Night Football. Which at that point I watched every Monday night and I caught a little of Melrose Place and I figured what the hell, I would watch a little of this before the game.

And I couldn’t stop laughing, it was a very funny show with people constantly screwing over other people and doing it in such a casual way and the writing of it was actually pretty good.

I’m not a soap opera expert obviously, but I think a good soap opera has all the selfishness and people screwing others with very little fear about the consequences for themselves or the people they are screwing. As well as the crazy lives that only people in Hollywood could live and write into a script.

But a good soap opera has great writing, very funny writing and very funny people in it. Which is why I’m actually a late, but definite fan of General Hospital, because that show essentially has a cast for comedians or comedic actors. Who are also great actors and combine both roles very well. People who improvise and with writers who give them great lines.

Monday, October 8, 2012

ABC News: ‘Lee Harvey Oswald Has Been Shot (1963)’

Source:The Guardian- the day that Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby in Dallas, in 1963.

Source:The Daily Press

“James R Leavelle, the detective who was handcuffed to Lee Harvey Oswald when the killer of John F Kennedy was in turn shot dead by Jack Ruby, has died. He was 99.

Lee Harvey Oswald is shot by Jack Ruby in a corridor of Dallas police headquarters.
JFK files reveal FBI warning on Oswald and Soviets’ missile fears
Read more
Leavelle’s daughter, Karla Leavelle, confirmed her father’s death to the New York Times.

Kennedy was shot dead on 22 November 1963, as he passed through Dallas.

Reporting for the Guardian, Alistair Cooke wrote: “The motorcade was going along slowly but smoothly when three muffled shots, which the crowd first mistook for fireworks, cracked through the cheers. One hit the shoulder blade and the wrist of Governor [John] Connally [of Texas] who was taken with the president to the hospital, where his condition is serious.

“The other brought blood trickling from the temple of the sitting president. His right arm flopped from a high wave of greeting and he collapsed into the arms of Mrs Kennedy, who fell unharmed. She was heard to cry ‘Oh no’ and sat there all the way cradling his head in her lap.”

Kennedy was declared dead at Parkland Hospital.”

From The Guardian 

Source:David Von Pein- WFFA-TV News in Dallas, bringing ABC News’s coverage of Lee Harvey Oswald being transferred from Dallas city jail, to county jail in 1963.

A crazy month November, 1963: First the President of the United States, Jack Kennedy is assassinated, the National Football League suspends its games the following week, and then the man who assassinated President Kennedy, is killed himself.

November, 1963 sort of looked like the world was coming undone and perhaps the last time that president’s were allowed to be that open and vulnerable in public. And that security was even tightened for people suspected of killing high-profile people whether they are politicians, or other celebrities.

Great books and documentaries have been made about these stories and the Federal Government thought they figured out how to deal with people who are so intent on assassinating politicians. But they let someone slip through in 1981, when John Hinkley was almost successful in murdering President Reagan, when the President was leaving a hotel at the Mayflower in Washington. All of these events have made the American presidency less public and more closed to the American people.

A lot of people, columnists like George Will and others say and believe that the 1963 JFK Assassination was the end of the 1950s. And that assassination brought in the radicalization of the 1960s. And brought in a fairly violent decade. I and others would argue that a lot of that radicalism was necessary at least as it had to do the with civil rights movement and then later the anti-Vietnam War movement.

A lot of people were simply murdered in the 1960s that no one except for perhaps the haters of those murder victims see as positive things, like President Kennedy, Dr. Martin L. King and later Senator Robert F. Kennedy. 

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Associated Press: 'Raw: Voters Go to the Polls in Venezuela'

Source:Associated Press- I guess you could call this democracy in action in Venezuela.

"Pres. Hugo Chavez's crusade to transform Venezuela into a socialist state is being put to the stiffest electoral test of his nearly 14 years in power. Voters started lining up hours before dawn to cast their ballots in the presidential election."

From the Associated Press

Chavez socialism may be headed out of power in Venezuela and they become a real democratic republic, With power less centralized.

Friday, October 5, 2012

Associated Press: Mark Hamrick: 'US Jobless Rate Falls to 7.8 Pct., 44-month Low'

Source:Associated Press- Mark Hamrick with this report.

"The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years." 

From the Associated Press

When you are running for reelection as President of the United States, whether the economy is solid, or struggling (and in this case struggling) it's the trends in the economy that you need to be looking at. As well as who gets better ratings on the economy according to the voters: you or your opponent. 

You would think in a normal election, 2012 would be similar to let's say 1992 for the Democrats or 1980 for the Republicans, where the opposition party looks not only to win back The White House, but do it in a blowout and win a landslide in Congress as well. But the fact is Republican nominee Mitt Romney is still losing the polls both in the popular vote and in the Electoral College as well. And Senate Democrats seemed poised to at least hold the Senate in 2012 and pick up seats in the House. Why? Because the economy has been growing steadily in 2012 both in growth at 2% and jobs created as at around 200,000 a month. 

President Obama gets better ratings on the economy than Governor Romney, according to the voters. So if you are the Obama Campaign right now, the trend lines look good for you as far as reelection.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

CSPAN: 1992 Presidential Debate: George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ross Perot

Source:CSPAN- President George H.W. Bush (Republican, Texas) 41st President of the United States.
"The presidential candidates for the 1992 election debated each other in the the second of three scheduled presidential debates. The participants were President George Bush, Governor Bill Clinton, and Ross Perot. They answered questions from the audience that regarded their campaigns and their policy preferences, which mostly focused on economic issues. The audience consisted of 209 undecided voters from the Richmond, VA area."

Source:MOX News

The 1992 townhall presidential debate was a history making presidential debate for a few reasons: 

The first one that was in a townhall format, where the contenders were on stage, but not stuck behind a podium. They could walk around and actually get close to the audience. And that was another thing the moderator was more of a referee than an interviewer, there to make sure that the contenders didn't go over time and try to keep them from dodging questions and even asking followups. As well as the audience being the interviewers. The debate was sort of like an afternoon talk show like Geraldo, Oprah, or, Donahue, or something.

And you had three contenders: President Bush, Governor Bill Clinton, and businessman Ross Perot. A Republican, Democrat and Independent. Ross Perot was not buried at 1% or something, he was polling at around 20%, with none of the three contenders polling at 50% and I believe only one contender polling at over 40%.

America was just starting to recover from the recession of the early 1990s, with high unemployment, interest and inflation rates. Not crazy about Republicans who had the White House for twelve years, but not in love with Democrats and sure they should have Congress and the White House. Which was Ross Perot's opportunity to get into the presidential election. 

Bill Clinton already had the lead in this race going in, but this is the debate I believe, where he sold the deal. Where he was able to convince enough voters, that he was ready and up for the job and was able to layout a vision of what change would mean under him. 

It was also the debate where Ross Perot came off as likable and competent and not crazy. But I don't think enough people knew enough about him to give him the presidency. This was also President Bush's last opportunity to tell people why he should give another opportunity to be reelected.

But President Bush blew it, because he wasn't able to connect with people and once again looked out- of-touch and I believe failed to layout, how his second term would be different from his first term. How would things get better in a second Bush Administration. He made his campaign almost completely about foreign policy, his success's in foreign policy, when the country was just went through a recession and just starting to recover from it.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Samuel Wilson: Jimmy Carter vs Gerald Ford Presidential Debate (October 22, 1976)

Source:Samuel Wilson- Governor James E. Carter (Democrat, Georgia) debating President Gerald R. Ford (Republican, Michigan) for the presidency in 1976.

"1976 Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford Presidential Debate #3 Oct 22" 

I don't think you can say that this presidential debate was a blowout either way. Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford I believe were both very sharp (for the most part) and showed they were in command of the issues during this debate. 

To use a sports analogy: imagine a heavyweight championship fight where it's even for the 1st 11 rounds and then the champion makes a big mistake, a self-inflicted wound, lets his guard down for a second and get clobbered for that. That's what happened when he was asked about Eastern Europe and the non-Russian Slavic states over there like Poland, where he basically said that there would be no Soviet control on Eastern Europe during a Ford Administration. When the fact is and President Ford knew this, that Eastern Europe west of Russia, were essentially satellite states of the Soviet Union. Not Russian republics, but they were heavily dependent on Russia for their survival, like Poland and Czechoslovakia. 

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy