Wrangler: Wrangler Women's Jeans

Source: Wrangler-

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press Plus

Love dem cowgirls en dem Wrangler jeans! Don't yall? Seriously I do, I just don't normally talk like a country boy, since I'm not a country boy and perhaps have a voice that would make me sound like a Yankee to anyone who is from rural America. But I do love cowgirls, especially how they present themselves and what they do. They are very sexy competent women who know how to have a good time and work hard and are very productive so they can have that good time and live a good life.

Cowgirls love their jeans and boots and Wrangler might be their favorite jeans. Wrangler might be to cowgirls what Levis are to urban women and they look great in Wranglers. And they look great because they are cowgirls. They are healthy sexy women because they take care of themselves, because they have to take care of themselves and stay in shape because of the work that they do and how they live. And guys country and urban love them for it.
Wrangler: Wrangler Women's Jeans Commercial

Levis: Curve ID Jeans

Source:Abhi Nav- Levi's Curve ID jeans commercial. 

Source:The Daily Press 

"Controversial Ads Levi #8217;s Curve Commercial -- I believe laquo; Indian Tv Commercials Ads"

From Abhi Nav

It is good to see, at least from my perspective commercials like this in India. A country that at least comes off in the West, America, Canada and Europe as pretty culturally conservative. Perhaps making the Religious-Right in America look like Libertarians and Liberals. Where women there are supposed to dress in traditional Indian wear and not show off their legs and curves and everything else that is common for women to do in the West. India is a growing country in so many ways and one of them has to do with culture.

I guess what I was hoping to see from this commercial though was Indian women in it wearing the Levis Curve ID jeans. Or at least South Asian women regardless of their ethnic background. What instead it looked like American women of non-South Asian descent in these Levis. And that the commercial was to be shown in India. Where obviously a lot of people speak English there and speak it very well since English is an official language there. Another great thing about India is they speak English and they understand America and the West very well.

Rob Atsea: ABC Weekend Report October 1979- Pope John Paul

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press Plus

Pope John Paul is intriguing to me, because he’s someone who gave both the Religious-Right as well as Liberals such as myself, things to admire about him with all of his strong religious-conservative stances on social issues for the Religious-Right. And his call for freedom for Eastern Europeans and others which is what Liberals liked about him and escaping from authoritarianism in those slavic countries like Poland where he was from.

Pope John Paul, was a strong voice against authoritarianism, at least from the Far-Left like with communism. But like others with the Christian-Right had authoritarian views when it came to homosexuality, women’s place in the world and reproductive rights. I don’t want to say I see Pope Paul as a mix bag, because by in large I believe he was a great man. But he did has some at least very traditional religious cultural views when it came to individualism and again women’s place in the world. And not believing women should take leadership roles in the Catholic Church.

But again where I go back and forth with Pope Paul was that he was against communism and authoritarianism in Eastern Europe. Especially in the Slavic countries like his home country Poland and Russia. And what I also like about the man as a Liberal was his calls for peace and charity and helping people in poverty and assisting people in the developing world. Which is where a lot of religious conservative churches tend to be on these issues. And truly believe in the Christian value of looking after most vulnerable and assisting people in need. Which is what Catholic Charities and other Christian groups do.

ABC News: Good Morning America- U.S. Representative Michelle Bachmann Won't Run For Re-Election: Tea Party Star Burning Out

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState Plus

I know we are supposed to have a citizen Congress with citizen Representatives and Senators who are supposed to represent the people. And as the great political satirist George Carlin once said, our politicians come from us and represent us. They come from our communities, go to our schools and so-forth. Live in our communities, so we can’t really complain about the politicians that we have. Especially the House district that Representative Michelle Bachmann represents.

I mean here’s a community that first elected Michelle to the U.S. House and then reelected her three times. And had a better choice in at least two of those elections 2010 and 2012. I’m not familiar with her first two opponents, so the people who Michelle Bachmann is supposed to represent can’t really complain about. Who represents them unless they didn’t vote for her and they would’ve perhaps moved to another House district in Minnesota. Where mental patients and escaped mental patients would be ineligible to run or serve in Congress, but they didn’t do that. But if George Carlin is right and our politicians are us, then America has a lot of problems.

The good news is that Michelle Bachmann is leaving the House of Representatives and Congress. And they’ll have one less lets say oddball among them, an eccentric member. And the House Intelligence Committee should actually receive more intelligence in the next Congress with Representative Bachmann no longer among them. Unless Michelle is replaced by someone less qualified, which would be a real scary thought. And we’ll have at least one less person claiming that same-sex marriage is a threat to national security. And actually believing in what they are saying in Representative Bachmann’s case.

Michelle who says big government is a threat to our freedom, but then proposes a constitutional amendment that would outlaw pornography. And give Uncle Sam the ability to control what Americans can do in their homes and personal lives. So there will be one less contradictory member of Congress and one less hypocrite. These are all good things and I’m not complaining. But as a blogger who sometimes writes satire, this is bad news and its bad news for comedians because a lot of our material comes from statements that Michelle Bachmann makes. So hopefully she’ll find a way to stay in the public eye. Perhaps as a verbal punching bag.

Michelle Bachmann’s long journey of her long hard-fought presidential campaign of 2011, all four months of it ended. Her presidential campaign was run so badly that she ran for President in 2011 even though the presidential election was in 2012. She ran for President during the wrong year and then ended her campaign in December, 2011 after losing her birth state the Iowa Caucus in 2011. She considered running for U.S. Senate in 2012.

At least Michelle would’ve run for Senate in a year where there was a Senate election. Against Senator Amy Klobuchar, which would’ve been Democrats best shot of knocking Michelle out of Congress completely. Because she would’ve lost to Senator Klobuchar. But instead Michelle had decided to do her constituents and state a favor and not run for reelection. And give Minnesota time to recover for her time in office.

Real Time: Video: Seth MacFarlane Discusses Atheism With Bill Maher

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress 

One of the advantages of living in a liberal democracy is that you get to decide for yourself whether you should or should not practice religion. And what you think of religion and secularism yourself. Rather than government making those decisions for yourself. For example I’m an Agnostic not because I do not like religion, but there are a lot of religions I do not like that are way too culturally conservative for me as a Liberal and way too collectivist culturally for me to ever be a part of. 

As well as not believing or disbelieving in God simply not knowing and basing things in life on the facts on the ground that are in front of me. The major reason for being an Agnostic or we wouldn’t be around. But another advantage of living in a liberal democracy is that we can’t force our religious views on other people, nor can government for example. I can’t try to force other people to be Agnostics because it's right for me. So it would work for you as well. "You are stupid to believe in religion or be an Atheist. And I’m going to make you aware of that every chance I get".

This is just something that Atheists and religious fundamentalists do not seem to understand. That their religious beliefs or lack of them are so strong and their view of life and the world are so strong and believe that they are always right that it's simply unhealthy to look at the world in another way. So when an Atheist sees a religious symbol that of course they disagree with, they somehow see that as some infringement on their right not to believe in religion. Or when a religious fundamentalist sees someone living their life in a certain way that goes against their religious beliefs, they somehow believe that is some sort of religious discrimination against them. 

Or a religious fundamentalist sees some law passed that goes against their religious beliefs, they somehow see that as an attack on their religious beliefs. That somehow their constitutional right to practice or not practice religion gives them the power to impose their religious beliefs on others. When the fact is in a liberal democracy with our Constitution, individuals get to make these decisions for themselves. I support Freedom of Religion because I support the First Amendment, which covers religion and the right to assemble. The right to free assembly that we makes these decisions for ourselves, instead of others dragging us into them. 

The second part of that is just as important as the first part that we can believe whatever we want to when it comes to religion. But we do not have the right to force our views onto others, people who disagree with us can simply say "you know we are going to have to agree to disagree here". And walk away rather than trying to impose our views onto each other either through law, or as individuals harassing others that we disagree with.

Marko Polo: Buddy Ryan’s Gang Green Defense

Source:NFL Network- Eagles TE talking about Buddy Ryan's Gang Green defense.

Source:The Daily Press 

"Buddy Ryan and the greatest defense of all-time" 

From NFL Network

If I had to take one defense of all-time as far as dominating an entire season including the postseason and Super Bowl, I would take the 85 Chicago Bears with their 46 defense. That Bears team doesn’t win the Super Bowl without Mike Ditka. A big reason why Buddy Ryan didn’t win a Super Bowl or even a playoff game in Philadelphia or Phoenix, because he wasn’t as good of a head coach as Iron Mike. 

Buddy could get his teams to the playoffs and even win a division, but he was a defensive oriented head coach, who didn’t have much respect for offenses, even his own. Mike Ditka was a complete head coach, who was offensive minded, but understood both sides of the ball very well. And knew he also had a to have a good defense to win championships.

But I believe Buddy Ryan’s Eagles were better on defense during a longer stretch. From 1988-91 and 91 was the Eagles first season without Buddy, the Eagles might of had the best defenses ever. Buddy might of of had more talent on defense in Philadelphia, then in Chicago. And he certainly had better teams on offense, even though he never had that one running back he could count on to lead their running game. 

One of the reasons why Buddy wasn’t successful in turning the Eagles into a Super Bowl contender was that he never really even had a good running game. (Outside of QB Randall Cunningham) A good passing game with good receivers like Fred Barnett, Calvin Williams, Keith Jackson, Keith Byers out of the backfield. When Randall Cunningham was on, he was about as good as any QB in the game.

Imagine how good those Eagle teams of the late 1980s and early 1990s would have been had Mike Ditka been their head coach and not Buddy Ryan. Ditka would’ve given the Eagles a running game and known how to work with Randall. And then you have either Jeff Fisher or even Buddy running the defense. The Eagles probably would’ve probably already have their first Super Bowl championship already. (Sorry, Eagle fans) 

Buddy I believe had better defenses in Philadelphia if you look at their secondary and then you have Reggie White on one side on the d-line, and Jerome Brown in the middle, who were both almost un-blockable. And then Clyde Simmons on the other side of Reggie. And the Eagles had more talent on offense, but Buddy wasn’t a good enough head coach as far as both sides of the ball to take the Eagles to the promise land.

Katerina Savenkova: 'Sexy Levi's Curve ID Commercial'

Source:Katerina Savenkova- in Levi's Jeans.

Source:The Daily Press

“Katerina Savenkova in “Quarters” commercial for Levi’s Curve ID Demi Curve Bootcut Jeans

Directed by Chris Allen Williams

Produced by SPANG TV

Talent by Wilhelmina Modelogic” 

From Katerina Savenkova 

I like commercials like this because it shows American women doing normal everyday activities like doing their laundry, but shows them looking sexy and not trying to look sexy necessarily, but just that they are sexy and part of that is because they are doing these normal basic perhaps boring everyday activities in their basic simple, but nothing boring about them, Levis denim jeans. This woman is wearing a tank top and blue Levis, going to the laundry mat in her Levis and looking sexy doing a simple chore like laundry.

There’s a reason why we see women in commercials like this and a reason why see women like this in action movies that perhaps only five people have ever seen and somewhere out West or in rural America and the movie at some point becomes somewhat popular that it at least has a cult following. Because they are sexy and play their parts real well to the point that they become memorable. A lot of times the women are wearing tight jeans in that movie and generally with boots and generally those denim jeans are Levis.

Slate: David Weigel- Filibuster Reform Kicks Open the Coffin and Returns From the Dead: Senators Have a Right to Make Assholes Out of Themselves

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState Plus

I wouldn’t mind having a super majority requirement to confirm executive appointments in the U.S. Senate, if the leaderships in both parties were responsible and not blocking appointments because they are being made by a president from the other party. Or the people are that are being appointed are not the people who a group of senators would’ve appointed for that position. Because the Senate doesn’t decide who gets appointed just who gets confirmed. The Senate doesn’t get to decide when the President can appoint and who they can appoint. That is the sole job of the Chief Executive of the United States.

Senators are supposed to judge nominees qualifications and character for the jobs that they are being appointed to. Not if the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Streets likes them, or are they are far enough to the Right to Left for them. Ideally I would eliminate the filibuster all together and get rid of the rule that allows for senators to talk their, well mouths off, but make assholes out of themselves and start reading from a phonebook simply in order to hold the floor. But replace with a motion to table that could only be made by the Leader or Minority Leader.

But they could only table final votes on the final legislation. Once debate is concluded and all amendments have been voted on, including the minority substitute offered by the Minority Leader, if one if offered. Then the Leader or Minority Leader could table the final bill and then the leader who didn’t table the bill could appeal to the rest of the Senate to overturn the motion to table which would take sixty votes to pass.

But this sounds like common sense where neither party would have a clear partisan advantage as a result, whether they are in the majority or minority. And we know the Senate isn’t run by commonsense, but assholes who couldn’t see the big picture even if it was a movie and only look at short-term political interests. Which is why something like this would probably never happened. Because it would mean doing what is in the long-term interest of the Senate.

The problem even with my reform is that you have a Republican minority led in the Senate that feels their job is to do the work of a faction in the Republican Party that wants to beat President Obama and the Democratic Senate at all costs and not allow for them to have any success at all. Just wait it out until they can find a way to impeach and convict the President in Congress or wait until the next presidential election. And not allow for the President and the Democratic Senate to do anything basically including appointing his members of his administration so they can do their jobs and run the administration.

Which was the strategy of the Senate Republican Leadership in the last Congress. And the Congress before that led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Remember what is Mitch McConnell remembered for saying in the 111th Congress his first speech on the Senate floor in that Congress that his number one priority is to defeat President Obama. And they’ve moved away from that a little in this Congress as the President has become more popular. So maybe the idea would be to eliminate the filibuster all together and replace it with a motion to table.

Senate Democrats aren’t completely innocent here. With Senate Leader Harry Reid not allowing for amendments on key pieces of legislation that passes out of committee and even tends to have bipartisan support in committee. Because he doesn’t want his vulnerable members up for reelection in this Congress to have to take tough votes that could hurt them in the election. But if people don’t want to vote on controversial items and are simply just interested in getting reelected, than they shouldn’t be serving in Congress at all.

What we need instead is for a Congress both the House and Senate to actually serve the country and address key issues of the country that the Federal Government needs to respond to. Where politics isn’t eliminated and it shouldn’t be, but where it doesn’t dominate either. Where there’s a clear relationship between the majority and minority in both chambers. The majority sets the agenda and decides what issues will be debated and voted on. And then has a responsibility to write legislation to address those issues.

But where the minority in both chambers as the loyal opposition, gets to weigh in and offer ideas and policies to address those same issues, including their own bills that are relevant to the issue that the majority is addressing. Which would probably mean the majority offering a lot of legislation that the minority doesn’t like and probably having the votes to pass it. Especially in the House, but where the minority would have the opportunity to amend what the majority is trying to do and even replace that bill with their own bill.

Need the same thing in the Senate, but still keep the super-majority requirement on controversial legislation where it is clear only the majority party supports it. And if neither side has the votes to pass exactly what they want, leaders come together and work out a final compromise that could pass with a bipartisan majority. This is what would happen if commonsense was running Congress, especially in the Senate. But again this institution is run by assholes, people with egos the size of continents where all members have equal say in what can get voted on and where they can kill legislation by themselves.

Commonsense simply doesn’t govern the U.S. Senate, it hasn’t really since the late 1990s or so. We’ve been in this divisive national malaise where both parties are only looking to capitalize and take full-advantage of it to meet their short-term interests. Otherwise fixing Congress and how it operates, especially the Senate which is supposed to be the upper chamber of Congress where cooler heads are supposed to prevail, would be fairly easy to fix. And things could get back to normal where both chambers legislate, where both parties offer and vote on their ideas on issues. And come together when they don’t have the votes on their own.

ABC News: ABC Evening News, January 11, 1978

ABC Evening News Anchor Frank Reynolds-

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress: ABC News: ABC Evening News, January 11, 1978

The economy was probably the biggest story of 1978, because that’s went it went down hill and didn’t come back until late 1983. With high unemployment, high interest rates, high inflation, and energy shortage and a recession in 1979-80 and all these things started in 1978. It was called the Great Deflation that started with the 1973 oil embargo that led to energy shortages. America was getting out of Vietnam and jobs were no longer being created from that war. Economic growth slowing down, unemployment going up. As well as the Federal budget deficit, interest rates and inflation. Even if the economy looked solid in January, of 78 with fairly low unemployment that was about to change very quickly by the spring that year.

As far as the smoking report, I’m not a fan of the nanny state and anyone who is familiar with by blogging knows that. But I am a big fan of education and commonsense regulation and that is what the Carter Administration was doing here. Tobacco obviously comes with serious health risks even if you don’t smoke, but hang out with people who smoke around you. So of course Americans have a right to know what they’re putting in their bodies before they do that, along with having the right to make the decision themselves what exactly they should put in their bodies. So of course no to prohibition when it comes to tobacco and no to the nanny state in general. But Americans have a right to breathe clean air and not to have to pay for other bad decisions. Which is where commonsense regulations and taxes come in.

What was otherwise a pretty bad year politically for President Jimmy Carter and his administration with the economy about to tank, which by itself may have cost President Carter his reelection, was actually pretty good for him in foreign affairs. With the Camp David Accords that he and his administration helped negotiate between Israel and Egypt. A peace agreement that got Egypt to recognize the only Jewish country in the world in Israel and the only Jewish state in the entire Middle East. That is surrounded by big Arab countries like Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and a big Persian country in Iran and a big Turkish country in Turkey. And that peace agreement almost forty-years later has held ever since. President Carter also got the Panama Canal Treaty passed by the Senate as well.

1978, the start of the second year of the Carter Administration that had an economy that was about to go south. Rising interest rates, inflation, rising energy costs and an energy shortage, but they did manage to get some important legislation through Congress. An energy bill and they got the airline industry deregulated which created a lot more competition there. They kept us out of war, they kept the deficit down even dealing with a very Progressive if not New-Left Democratic Congress that wanted all sorts of new spending and new taxes to finance their new programs. So President Carter and his administration, actually managed to get a lot done in their four years.

Chris Myers: FOX Sports CMI, Joe Montana: The Quarterback of The 1980s

Joe Cool

Chris Myers: FOX Sports CMI, Joe Montana: The Quarterback of The 1980s

If you judge quarterbacks by their size or their physical abilities or their numbers, Joe Montana doesn’t stack up very well except for his numbers. But if you judge quarterbacks by how well they play in big games and how they do when the game is on the line and how they play the game, then you are going to have an impossible time finding a list of quarterbacks who you could even compare with Joe Montana as far as great quarterbacks. The list would be like two quarterbacks at least as far as I’m concern. John Unitas and John Elway and perhaps Otto Graham as well and that’s about it.

Some QB’s have a nice run 5-6 years where they do well and then you can say they are one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, Rich Gannon comes to mind with the Oakland Raiders. And then there are quarterbacks who may have a short run of greatness, but accomplish so much in that period that it lands them in the Hall of Fame. Terry Bradshaw comes to mind with the Pittsburgh Steelers. But it’s hard to find many if anyone who were as great as Joe Montana for as long as Montana in the history of the NFL.

When I think of Joe Montana I think of the QB who played for the best team and the best head coach of his era. The San Francisco 49ers playing for the best offense and playing with a great defense where he for the most part didn’t have to win games on his own. Joe Cool was a possession passer who would beat you with play after play, pass after pass. And when the defense got tired of that and came after Joe, he could go deep on the defense with wide receivers like Jerry Rice or John Taylor.

And earlier Joe had Freddie Solomon and Dwight Clark. So if you want to play press coverage against Joe and the 49ers, now you are at risk of giving up the deep pass against the 49ers. Because their West Coast offense always had the deep threat in guys who would look for the big play. Especially against press coverage which is what made this offense so great because it forced defenses to defend the whole field. Short, middle and deep and Joe was the best at running this offense.

What separates Joe Cool from anyone as far as quarterbacks again except for John Unitas and John Elway, you could make a very good case for any of these three quarterbacks as the best all-time, is they all played a long time, but they were all great quarterbacks for a long time and how well they played in the big games for as long as they did. A lot of quarterbacks hang around and stay in the league for a long time. But it’s the special quarterbacks that are not just in the league forever as it may seem, but they are great QB’s for so long. Winning so many games and championships and that’s the type of QB Joe Cool was.

Levi's: Curve ID Commercial

Source:Levi's- Curve ID commercial from 2011.

Source:The Daily Press 

“The Levi’s® Curve ID fit system was created as a result of studying and listening to more than 60,000 women around the world. Through this research, Levi’s® designers created a new approach to measuring a woman’s body and identified the three distinct body types that account for 80 percent of women’s shapes universally.

The video was shot by award winning feature film director Andrew Lancaster and features a hot 60s inspired track.”

From Levi's Aunz

Source:Levi's- Curve ID commercial.

I love Levis commercials for women. I think they are the best looking denim jeans on women and there’s no secret why Levis Strauss is so big and popular and I believe a big part of that is their women’s jeans are so classic and simple.

Classic tight blue denim that highlights women’s curves, legs and butts without needing any special decorations or anything else to get people to want to look at the jeans. They are simply great looking jeans because of the material of denim that they use both their blue and black denims.

And I really Levis Curve ID, which is what this commercial is about. Tight denim Levis for sexy healthy women. Not stick-figures or obese women, but sexy healthy women who take care of their bodies and like to reward themselves for looking great and taking care of their of themselves and want to highlight their curves.

Which is what you see in this commercial. Healthy sexy women who look great and because of that they look great in their Levis Curve ID jeans and makes this a good commercial.

Julie G: ‘Fashion Friday- Levi's Denim Jeans For Your Shape’

Source:Julie G- Levi's Curve ID Jeans.

Source:The Daily Press 

“Take Levis Curve ID Quiz:Levi's." 

From Julie G 

I love women, especially curvy sexy women that are even willing to do videos like this and show what a woman with curves looks like in Levi's denim jeans. The jeans she is wearing I believe are for curvy sexy women. Not stick-figures or women who live at all you can eat meat lovers buffets. But healthy, sexy, curvy, women who take care of themselves including staying in shape. And it’s not just the body, but the jeans that a woman like this curvy sexy woman in general wear. 

This woman I believe picked out the perfect jeans for her body and sexy women tend to do it. I believe Levi's and perhaps Levi's Curve ID in particular are not only the perfect, but the best jeans for sexy curvy women. To me sexy woman are curvy women. 

What she described as straight-figured women to me are women that perhaps do not have curves at all. At least in the lower body and slim and perhaps tall as well. Valley girls tend to look like this and put down curvy women as automatically being fat. Even if the curvy woman’s curves are tight and strong, like the woman in the video. Curvy women are simply that, women with curves and sexy curvy women are also healthy.

Newsmax: The Steve Salzburg Show- Bud Grant: On His NFL Career

Source: Newsmax- NFL Hall of Fame head coach Bud Grant , on The Steve Malzberg Show

Source: FRS Daily Press Plus

I don’t want to sound cold here, but if you look at the Vikings four Super Bowl appearances, they were the second best team in every game, so why they would be on a missing rings list from NFL Films is surprising to me. And in really at least two of those games they were clearly the second best team in the Super Bowl. Because only Super Bowl 8 against the Miami Dolphins and Super Bowl 9 against the Pittsburgh Steelers, before the Steelers became a great team on offense, the Vikings were clear underdogs in these games.

The Vikings remind me of the Buffalo Bills of the early 1990s. As teams that got beat badly in Super Bowls by teams that were clearly better than them. The Vikings were overmatched upfront on defense and offense by the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl 4. And by the Oakland Raiders in Super Bowl 11, which meant the Chiefs and Raiders could run against them real well. And take away the Vikings run game and throw the ball when they wanted to do and force the Vikings to throw the ball when they had to.

The Vikings of the late 1960s and 1970s were very good teams on both sides of the ball. But that’s not enough when you play teams that are clearly better than you in the Super Bowl. They lost to two of the best teams of all-time in the 1969 Chiefs and the 1976 Raiders in the Super Bowl. Which is how both games turned into blowouts because the Vikings simply weren’t big and good enough up front to take on those big powerful offensive and defensive lines that the Chiefs and Raiders had.

The Vikings getting beat badly up front messed up their offense in these games where they had to throw practically every down. Against those big strong quick defensive lines. Against the 69 Chiefs, 73 Dolphins, 74 Steelers and 76 Raiders. The missing rings should be about teams that would’ve won the Super Bowl that year, but came up short and the 98 Vikings would be on that list. Perhaps the 86 Cleveland Browns, the 68 Baltimore Colts or the 1990 San Francisco 49ers. Not for teams that lost the Super Bowl to a better team.

The 69 Vikings are one of the most dominant teams of all-time as far as how they won games and simply dominated their opponents. A team that finished 14-2. But the 68 Colts who lost Super Bowl three were a better team both on offense and defense and a team that should be on this list. A team that won Super 5 against the Dallas Cowboys. What the Vikings were of this era were very good teams especially on defense that didn’t have enough to win the Super Bowl.
Newsmax: The Steve Malzberg Show- Bud Grant: On His NFL Career

NFL Network: Mike Ditka- A Football Life

Source:Online Documentaries- Iron Mike Ditka: head coach of the Chicago Bears (1982-92)

Source:The Daily Press

“A Football Life is a documentary series developed by NFL Films and aired on NFL Network that documents the lives of select National Football League players, coaches, owners, and teams. Friends, teammates, family members and other players and coaches associated with the subjects are interviewed.”

Source:NFL Network- Iron Mike Ditka: head coach of the Chicago Bears (1982-92)

From Online Documentaries

To understand Mike Ditka you have to understand his upbringing growing up in a tough Western Pennsylvania town. From a blue-collar Polish-American family with a very tough and demanding father who really loved him. Who ends up going to college at Pittsburgh University another real tough iron blue-collar city and then gets drafted by the Chicago Bears. Similar town as Pittsburgh culturally, but with about ten times as many people.

So, Iron Mike for the most part has always been around where he came from and what he’s most comfortable with as a man. And then he ends up playing one of the toughest positions in the game tight end where you have to be tough and physical to be successful.

The Mike Ditka that people got to see as a football player is the Mike Ditka that a lot more people saw as head coach of the Chicago Bears. This get in your face tough ass didn’t take crap from anyone who simply wanted the best from his players.

Mike Ditka was the ultimate tough love head coach father figure that coached the Chicago Bears for eleven seasons (1982-92) and if you look at his record he was very successful one of the most winningest head coaches in the NFL in the 1980s.

You do your job and you give your best effort, Ditka is your best friend. But if you screw up and make mental mistakes or are lazy, Ditka is the last person you want to be around. Because he’ll tell you how bad you were, how dumb you were and how bad of a mistake you’ve made.And if you don’t do better in the future, you better look for another job.

Which was the message of Mike Ditka and you might not like his tactics, but that’s what Ditka was about. And I think something he learned from Tom Landry in Dallas, that if you want the best out of your players, you have to want it, you have to expect it and you better demand it. And your players must be aware of it as well.

Mike Ditka was a blue-collar Polish-American head coach coaching in a blue-collar city with a large Polish-American community.

Iron Mike fit Chicago as well as any head coach has ever fit any major pro sports city. And why he called his football team the 85 Bears the Grabowski’s, because his team were so blue-collar and represented that city so well. And it worked very well in the 1980s until it burned out in the early 1990s when the Bears let him go.

Sean Taylor: NFLN’s A Football Life- Tom Landry, The Man Who Built America’s Team

The Father of America's Team

Sean Taylor: NFLN’s A Football Life- Tom Landry, The Man Who Built America’s Team

Tom Landry is an interesting subject for me as a Redskins fan because here’s the guy who built America’s Team that became the new arch-rival of the Redskins in the early 1970s replacing the New York Giants and cost the Redskins division-titles in the 1970s which the Redskins corrected in the 1980s. But Mike Ditka I believe has the best quote that at least I’ve heard about Tom Landry so far when he was talking about class.

And Iron Mike said and I’m paraphrasing here, but “that class is hard to define, but you know it when you see it. It might be a great throw from a quarterback or the sound of a ball off of a sluggers bat for a home run. Tom Landry was class”, that when you saw him or knew him you knew he was class and that’s a great way to describe Tom Landry. That greatness is hard to define, but you know it when you see it. You know a great play when you see it, you know a great player when you see them play and you know a great head coach when you play for him. Or watch his career and that’s what Tom Landry was.

Tom Landry’s philosophy of coaching was simply to get the best out of his players and teams that he could possibly could. To make them as good as could be, which is easier said then done and hopefully the goal of every head coach. But then how you do that and every head coach probably has their own philosophy to accomplish that. But with coach Landry it was about never being satisfied with any of his players until he got the best out of him that he could.

Which is why he never congratulated his players or tell them how great of a job that they were doing and never complemented them. Unless he was getting the best play and games out of his players that he could and when he did that is what we saw America’s Team in the NFL. The Dallas Cowboys of the 1970s a team that was almost impossible to beat. When they were all playing up to their capabilities and winning championships. And with Tom Landry pushing his players to the limit was on both offense and defense always pushing his players to get the best out of them.

You want to talk about football genius’, how many head coaches do you know that could be either the offensive or defensive coordinator on the team. That knew enough about both offensive and defensive football that he could not only call the offensive plays and defensive plays for his team, put both the offensive and defensive game plans together for his team, not just do all of these things, but do them very well. The only person that did all of these things and did them well is Tom Landry.

Tom Landry is one of the top 3-5 head coaches of all-time because of how knowledgable he was about both sides of the ball. But then was such a great teacher and knew how to communicate his knowledge to his players. And show them exactly what he wanted out of them and very few if anyone did that better than Tom Landry.The numbers in Tom Landry’s career. Twenty consecutive winning seasons from 1966-85 which I believe will never be broken. Eleven straight playoff appearances from 1975-85, that may be never be done again. Two Super Bowl championships in the 1970s, the Cowboys being the only NFC team to win a Super Bowl in the 1970s. Twelve division-titles, five conference championships.

All of these things happening after inheriting one of the worst expansion teams of all-time in the 1960 Cowboys. But it’s not the championships and the 270 odd victories that Tom Landry had but all the knowledge he brought to the game. And his great ability as a teacher to teach his knowledge which is why he’s Ss high on the list of greatest NFL head coaches of all-time.

Carrie Underwood: 'Carrie Underwood - Mama's Song (Official Video)'

Source:Carried Underwood- Mama's Song.

Source:The Daily Press 

"Carrie Underwood's official music video for 'Mama's Song'. Click to listen to Carrie Underwood on Spotify... 

From Carrie Underwood

Source:Carrie Underwood- Mama's Song 

How do I describe my own mother, the most important woman in my life who without I wouldn’t have a life. And how do I do that in a blog post. Which I guess is the challenge of this post, right. I guess the way I would do that would be to look at people who I truly respect who’ve influenced my life. and those people are the people, men and women who are never satisfied and never completely happy, who are never interested in settling. Not that they are depressed people always looking for the negative and only feel good when tears are flowing down their faces, who want to hang around depressed people all the time. I think that would even be depressing for shrinks, because it would be like going to a depression convention. 

Source:INVDB- Mama's Song 

Depressed people, are well, depressing and listening to nothing, but sad stories all the time, could create more depression. But what I’m talking about is someone in my mother, who doesn’t let the people they care about and love settle when they know they can do better. Always looking for that edge who doesn’t settle for mediocrity always pushing the people they love to do the best they can. And that’s how I would describe my mom.

My mom is not only someone who doesn’t let her sons settle for being okay or good. And I’m one of three sons, my parents have three kids all boys, but she’s also someone whose always looking to challenge her kids. And try to get them to do something they normally wouldn’t do, especially if it’s good for them. And she knows they would be successful at it and would even enjoy it. 

I can give you a small example of how Mom pushed me and a big example of that. When I was a kid, my mother was always pushing mashed potatoes on me, even though she knew I didn’t like them and I wouldn’t eat them. And she would keep saying: “These are really good you should try them I think you’ll like them I made them different this time.” And so-forth. 

I hated mashed potatoes my whole time as a kid. But at some point as an adult I guess in my mid twenties, I tried mashed potatoes one more time, I guess. Either made by mom like on Thanksgiving, or perhaps at a restaurant where the mashed potatoes came with the meal. And actually liked them and have loved mashed potatoes ever since. As an adult and eat practically every time I’m eating meatloaf, or steak, or some type of meat like that. I guess my mom built up my tolerance for mashed potatoes as a kid and I grew to love them as an adult and they are also good for me. A bigger example of my mother’s influence on me has to do with what I’m doing at this very moment. Which is blogging and writing.

Ten years probably before blogging was a major industry, Mom knew I was a political junky from our family conversations and she suggested I should write a letter to the editor at the Washington Post about politics. I wish I had done that now, but I wasn’t even thinking about writing online at that point. And wasn’t sure what I wanted to do professionally. I wish I had done that, but I’m not blogging without my mother. And people who I use to work with at a bookstore and I have them to thank for that especially my mother. Who I’ll always love and be grateful for.

Stephen Bowen: Video: NBC Sports: CFA 1992-Pennsylvania Nittany Lions @ Notre Dame Fighting Irish: Full Game

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress

Penn State-Notre Dame, was one of the better college football rivalries in the 1980s and early 1990s. And it’s just a shame that they still aren’t playing. And I believe one of the weakness’ of Notre Dame not being part of a conference. Because a lot of their big rivalries wouldn’t have to end, because of where they are located they could’ve been in the Big Ten or Big East. And never have to stop playing Michigan or Purdue or Penn State or West Virginia, Syracuse, Boston, because they would likely be in the same conference as most if not all of these teams. The Big East, would make a great comeback in football if Notre Dame was part of it. And they bring back Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Syracuse. Add Penn State and perhaps Buffalo and you would have a great conference with Notre Dame as perhaps the top program in it.

For President: Video: Jimmy Carter 1980 TV Ad Commander

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress

You do not see Jimmy Carter running on the economy here and telling people about how great the economy is. With inflation not being much of a factor or with low-interest rates, or plenty of energy, oil and gas to go around. With low unemployment and high economic growth, with no American hostages around the world, or without Russia on the march in the Middle East, or anything like that. Because the Carter Campaign knew all of that wouldn’t be true and that actually all the opposites to those things were true.

The country was in bad shape in 1980 and back in recession with the American hostages still in Iran. A country that did not want Americans or other Westerners in their country at all. So what the Carter Campaign is trying to do here in this ad campaign is run on what they could and what was left to run on. That the military was stronger, that America was at peace in the world for the most part not involved in any foreign wars. And that even Egypt and Israel were at peace with each other as well. And all of that is true.

Rocket Shark: Video: NBC Sports: FBS 1993: Tallahassee Seminoles @ Notre Dame Fighting Irish: Bob Costas Intro

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress

Bob Costas is a very intelligent man with an excellent quick sense of humor and not just about sports and not just about baseball, but life in general. And even though I think he has a tendency to sound too intellectual especially when talking about sports, I think he did a very good setting up what was the best college football game in 1993. And I believe the two best teams in college football in 1993. Even though the Seminoles beat the Nebraska Cornhuskers in the 1993 National Championship and not the Irish. I think this should’ve been the game. And perhaps it would’ve been had the Irish not have been upset by the Boston Eagles at home that season. A team that wasn’t in national title contention and might of not had even been in the top 25 that season.

Miss Malevolent: Marilyn Monroe- Happy Birthday Mr. President (1962)

Source:Miss Malevolent- Hollywood Goddess and Babydoll Marilyn Monroe, singing Happy Birthday to President John F. Kennedy in 1962. 

Source:The Daily Press

"Marilyn Monroe sings Happy Birthday to the President."

From Miss Malevolent

President Kennedy had the line of the night, at least from what I heard saying that after hearing Marilyn Monroe sing Happy Birthday to him, he could now retire from politics. I mean after hearing a goddess like that with that voice sing Happy Birthday to you, what is the point of going on, what else could you even hope to accomplish at that point after hearing Marilyn sing Happy Birthday to you. It’s not just the President of the United States being the only politician that may be lucky enough to get Happy Birthday sung to you by Marilyn Monroe, but that Jack Kennedy might have been the only politician lucky enough to have Happy Birthday sung to them.

Source:National Post- Robert F. Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe & John F. Kennedy, at JFK's 1962 birthday party. 

Jack Kennedy was certainly ahead of his time as far as how he related to Americans. Because he wasn’t just judged by the job he did as President, which of course all President’s are and he wasn’t just judged by how he related to Americans personally, which of course all President’s are. But he was also judged by how he related to people in a social way, he was our first hip President, someone who related well the entertainment community, including Hollywood. Which is a big reason why he had so many friends out there. Like Peter Lawford, who also happened to be his brother-in-law, Marilyn Monroe, Frank Sinatra and many others. That is how this event happened

Tiger Ray: Clemson Radio: FBS 1979-Clemson Tigers @ Notre Dame Fighting Irish: Full Game

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress

1979 was the first season that the Notre Dame Fighting Irish played with QB Joe Montana. Who of course was drafted by the San Francisco 49ers in 1979 in the NFL after four solid, but not great years at Notre Dame. Danny Ford was just starting to build a college football monster at Clemson. Who took over the program in late 1978 a program that was a solid ACC contender, but he made them into a national power to the point in the 1980s winning the ACC and going to a January bowl game was expected. The only question was whether they would be playing for the national championship and how close would they get to that. They won the national championship in I believe 1981 or 82. And haven’t won it since which gives you a good idea how much Ford meant to Clemson football.

Foreign Affairs: Opinion: Jal Mehta: Why American Education Fails

Foreign Affairs: Opinion: Jal Mehta: Why American Education Fails 

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress

For the United States to succeed long-term and for us to ever get our poverty rate down to at least a more competitive level with our developed competitors, instead of twice as high, or to get our level of poverty down to where our normal rate of unemployment is, we simply are going to have to have better public education in this country. And get back to being in the top ten in education in the world where we were twenty thirty years ago instead of 39th. And being towards the middle of the pack with our competitors. Being ranked with small developing countries like the Baltic Republics.

For this to happen we simply our going to have to stop sending our students to school based on where they live. And instead send them to school based on what’s the best school for them. And that means things like public school choice and charter schools especially for our low-income students and even empowering their parents to go back to school. To finish their education so they can get good jobs as well. Stop paying teachers based on how long they’ve been teaching and instead pay them based on how well their students are learning.

And hold our teachers and their students accountable for the jobs that they are doing. Like we do in practically every other profession. And stop promoting kids to the next grade level based on their age and instead based on how well they are learning and what they know. Can they read and write and so forth at the next grade level. And we need to stop funding schools based on where they are located and instead fund based on what they need to serve their students and staff well and do a good job. That means another revenue sources to go along with the property tax or replace the property tax.

I’m not in favor of private school choice at least that’s funded by taxpayers. Because it diverts money that otherwise could be going to things that fund public school choice. Which would give parents the option to send their kids to any school in that public school system that they want. So basically that would have an opening for their kid. Or money that could be used to fund charter schools. Which are public schools that are run independent of the public school bureaucracy. Or money that could be used to fund low-performing schools in low-income neighborhoods.

So low-income schools have the resources that they need to be more competitive with let’s say middle class schools. Or money that could be used to pay good teachers more. And retrain low-performing teachers. But what public school choice and charter schools do is give parents and students the choice to go to what’s the best school for the student. And not based on where they live. And that means if a school is not doing very, well they are going to lose students. And forces public schools to compete with each other to make the public school system as effective as it can be.

There’s not a lot of things I would spend more money on at the Federal level. But public education, job training and public infrastructure would be the areas I would spend more money. But not to fund a failing system. But I would reform the system to improve and then invest more in an improving system. So we have all the resources that we need to see that everyone in the country has access to life long education.

Not just K-12 or even just through college, but as working adults as well. No matter their income levels. So we all have the opportunities that we need to be successful and live in freedom in life. And not be dependent on government, because we didn’t have access to a good education. And that’s what education reform looks like from me. And the liberal way to reform education and job training in this country.