CBS Sports: NBA 1984- ECSF Game 1- New York Knicks @ Boston Celtics: Highlights

Source:CBS Sports- the New York Knicks and Boston Celtics, from 1984.

Source:The Daily Press

"Opening game of the legendary 1984 ECSF series between Boston Celtics and New York Knicks. Game 1 was all about the best frontline in basketball history; Bird, McHale and Parish dominated in the first encounter of 7-game war.

Larry Bird: 23 points, 12 assists (amazing passes by prime Bird), 9 rebounds, 10/16 FG.

Kevin McHale: 25 points, 11/14 FG.

Robert Parish: 19 points, 12 rebounds, 9/16 FG.

Celtics won this one 110:92" 

From Larry Legend

The Celtics-Knicks, a rivalry with a great history. This was a classic series in one of the best rivalries and two of the best franchises in the NBA, the New York Knicks and Boston Celtics, where you have four Hall of Famers in it in Bernard King for the Knicks and Larry Bid, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish. Dennis Johnson for the Celtics, should also be in the Hall of Fame, but thats a different story. 

The Celtics actually had four Hall of Famers if you include their head coach K.C. Jones. And that is really the difference in this series. The Knicks were so dependent on one player in Bernard King, whereas the Celtics had several great players and great role players. People like Cedric Maxwell, Danny Ainge, Scott Wedman.

The Knicks, similar to the Atlanta Hawks and Chicago Bulls of the mid and late 1980s, were very dependent on one great scorer to lead the way. And when that one player was having a good game that would free up scoring opportunities for other players. The Hawks, had Dominique Wilkins and the Bulls of course had Michael Jordan. But neither team had another great scorer they could go to when their best player had an off game. 

All great scorers in the NBA have off games, but if they’re playing on very good teams, those teams have other scorers and generally multiple scorers that can pick up the slack when their best scorer has that off game. With the Knicks, it really was Bernard King. And sometimes Bill Cartwright and Ray Williams. But they needed King at his best for most games.

I believe that was the main difference in this series. The great team in the Celtics, vs the great player in Bernard King. If King has one of those great games and scored in the high thirties and forties, the Knicks could play with the Celtics, if they played good defense. 

But the Celtics had Larry Bird who by himself was about as great of a scorer as the NBA has ever seen. The reason why he didn’t score as much as the other great scorers was because he didn’t have to. Teams would do a lot to stop him and Legend was such a great passer and playmaker and would free up his teammates for scores. As well as a great rebounder and team defender. He didn’t have to have a great scoring night to beat the Knicks. Because he had a lot of help and did so many other things for the Celtics.

History Channel: The Manson Family Murders

Source:Lana Hodges- Welcome to the world of Helter Skelter?

Source:The Daily Press

"The first victims fell on August 9, 1969, at the home Roman Polanski had rented located at 10050 Cielo Drive in Benedict Canyon, an area just north of Beverly Hills."

From Lana Hodges

Source:FRS FreeState- Manson Family chief prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi.

Charles Manson had the perfect group to do his evil deeds, )so to speak). Because his group was similar to him in the sense that they didn’t seem to fit in very well in mainstream society. Even though Manson’s soldiers all came from solid middle class backgrounds and could’ve all ended going to college before they went to prison for their murders. But instead ended up with Charlie Manson, because they felt for some reason that their families no longer wanted them.

Charlie, had just gotten out of prison for the last time, in 1967-68 and ends up in the San Francisco area. And meets up with these very young women and Tex Watson, in their late teens. And sees that they are lost and offers them his love and takes them in. And they embraced him and the Manson Crime Family is formed as a result.

Bob Parker: ABC News 45-85- Post-World War II

Source:Bob Parker - ABC News anchor Ted Koppel

Source:The Daily Press Plus

It would be another thirty-years until I was born when World War II was officially over in 1945. So it’s not like I can talk about post-World War II America with any personal experience. I’m going off of what I’ve learned about it from books, publications and documentaries. But this was a time when America came back and came back stronger than it ever was, at least to this point. The Great Depression was finally over and America was moving again. Emerging as the economic, diplomatic and military power of the world. Russia was obviously a major competitor to us from both a military and diplomatic perspective. But America was the power because of what we stood for.

America transitions from a depressing time of economic depression and war, to a period of peace at least abroad, but not at home. To where we were the military and economic power of the world. And where we could influence any part of the world that wanted what we already had. Peace, freedom an independent and developed economy. We rebuild Europe after Europe destroyed themselves. We rebuilt Japan after they attacked us and we practically destroyed them to end that war with them. America had it all from an economic and military perspective and were prepared to use it to further our interests around the world. When Harry Truman became President of the United States in 1945, he really was inheriting a powerful great giant of a country. That had never been stronger.

America was not just moving again, but moving to not just be as strong as we can at home, but abroad as well. Neoconservatives I think love this time, because America was fighting to expand democracy and freedom around the world. Not just in Europe, but in the Orient in Japan and the later Korea. America perhaps overestimating their strengths and power and underestimating China’s and Communist Korea by trying to unite all of Korea under a democratic system. And as a result we left Korea deadlocked between a communist North and a democratic South in the 1950s. But South Korea thanks to America, is one of the strongest countries in the world today as well. This was an incredible time when America almost seemed invincible.
Bob Parker: ABC News- 45-85- Post World War II

The Onion: U.S. Senator Ted Cruz- 'Fills Few Hours of Marathon Speech With Rousing Pro-ObamaCare Argument'

Source:The Onion- U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, R, Texas- late supporter of ObamaCare?

Source:The Daily Press Plus

Only The Onion would report that Ted Cruz spoke in favor of so-called ObamaCare. Otherwise Senator Cruz could be both drunk and high and awake for seventy-two hours straight at the Guantanamo Bay Prison. And even forced to take truth serum and still find away to be against ObamaCare. Actually, maybe Senator Cruz’s speech happened at Guantanamo Bay Prison on one of his visit’s there after visiting his relatives in Cuba. And decided to stay back and give his big speech there, instead of flying back to Congress to speak on the Senate floor.

Or maybe Senator Cruz just ran out of things to say. That even phone books have a limited amount of pages that you can go through and read. And he was starting to fall asleep reading the phonebook, or got tired of listening to the presiding officer snore in their chair. Or perhaps the Senator just lost his train of thought. But actually he doesn’t much have much of a train of thought to begin with, because he keeps missing that train. And decided after going into every single thing that he doesn’t like about the Affordable Care Act, including a lot of the stuff that is actually not in the law, he would then go through what he actually likes about the law.

Me personally, every time I see a story from The Onion, I gotta take it with at least one grain of salt. I realize they report more facts than Fox News even and perhaps are the most trusted news organization for Millennial’s. But hear them report that Senator Cruz, whose perhaps the most prominent Tea Party member in Congress, come out in favor of the Affordable Care Act, would be like hearing Rick Santorum come out on favor of prostitution and bigamy, in the same speech. But again you give a twenty-hour speech and anything can happen, including finally running out of stuff to say and saying things you don’t believe.
The Onion: U.S. Senator Ted Cruz- 'Fills Few Hours of Marathon Speech With Rousing Pro-ObamaCare Argument'

Yale University: Nicholas Wolterstorff- On Faith in Liberal Democracy

Source:Yale University- Professor Nicholas Wolterstorff 

Source:FRS FreeState Plus

Faith in liberal democracy is about the freedom of and from religion. But that they are separate from the state and that all of these things come from the Constitution. People have the right to practice, or not practice religion and that we have separation of church and state. Based on the Constitution and that even though we have the freedom to believe what we believe. But we do not have the right to force our views on others especially through law. The right to be heard, but not the right to harass people with your views who disagree with you.

Liberals, get stereotyped as being anti-religion and that if anything we would want to see religion eliminated if not outlawed in society. Even though Liberals created the Freedom of Religion when we wrote the U.S. Constitution and created the United States. As well as the Bill of Rights that gives us all of these individual rights and freedom of choice. To take these decisions for ourselves. Not the right to force our views on people who disagree with us. Which is much different and fascist even. But the fact is liberalism is built around individual freedom, rights and choices. And not statist, or fascist at all.

Now, I do believe that Liberals tend to be more secular than lets say Christian Conservatives, or Islāmic Conservatives. That goes without saying, because a big part of liberalism has to do with reason and evidence. That you go where the best available facts and evidence are. And take your positions and make your views based on that. Instead of using faith to make those decisions for yourself. But that is much different from saying that just because I or someone else is secular, that everyone else should be, or they have to be as well even through law. But again, liberalism is about individual freedom, choice and rights. That the individual can make these decisions for themselves.
Yale University: Nicholas Wolterstorff- On Faith in Liberal Democracy

Classic MLB 11: Video: WGN Sports: MLB 1981-10/04-Chicago Cubs @ Philadelphia Phillies: Full Game

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress

1981 was an interesting season for Major League Baseball to say the least. It was a strike shorten season and the genius’ at MLB decided to do a minor league play. Which was to have the division leaders of the first and second halves of the season be the playoff teams of each league. Instead of the division winners being the teams with the best overall records in each league for the entire season. Which meant the Cincinnati Reds even though they had the best overall record in the NL West in 1981, didn’t win that division. Because the Los Angeles Dodgers had a better record in the second half of the season. This was the first four game playoff series in MLB because of the strike shortened season. The Cubs were the Cubs in 1981, finishing in last place. They parked themselves there early on that season and never left. The Phillies were again very good and trying to defend their 1980 World Series Championship.

MLB Vault: MLB 1988- World Series Game 1- Oakland Athletics @ Los Angeles Dodgers; Full Game

Source:MLB Vault- Kirk Gibson, at the plate to face Dennis Eckersley, in game 1 of the 1988 MLB World Series.

Source:The Daily Press

"Oakland Athletics 4 at Los Angeles Dodgers 5, F -- The Dodgers, already serious underdogs against the A's and Bash Brothers Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire, are given even less of a chance with injured star Kirk Gibson on the shelf. Canseco's second-inning grand slam gives Oakland a 4-3 lead until the bottom of the ninth, when dominating closer Dennis Eckersley comes on to finish it up. But with the tying run on first, Gibson limps up to pinch hit and makes World Series history with a spine-tingling, game-winning two-run homer in his only at-bat of the Series."

From MLB Vault

Source:USA Today- " Vin Scully's greatest calls: Kirk Gibson's greatest home run."

“I don’t believe what I just saw!” Which of course was Jack Buck’s famous call of Kirk Gibson’s famous home run for the Dodgers in-game 1 of the 1988 World Series off of Dennis Eckersley of the Athletics. Referring to the fact that Gibson essentially had no leg strength in that at bat, because he had two bad legs. I believe two broken ankles, perhaps just one broken ankle, but the other leg was hurt as well. And Gibson hits that home run off the best closer in MLB who was a power pitcher and for a time in the late 1980s early 1990s almost un-hittable.

The Eck ( as Dennis Eckersley was called ) was the Mariano Rivera of his generation. The Gibson home run, Kirk’s only hit in this World Series, is just an example of how great a player and hitter he was. And had he only been able to stay healthy, we are talking about a five tool player headed to first ballot status in the MLB Hall of Fame.

WJLA-TV: Video: ABC 7 News at Noon First look: MGM National Harbor Casino Plan Unveiled

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

National Harbor would be a perfect place for a casino, because of all of the people it would bring in. Because of the location attracting people from the Washington suburbs in Maryland, but also Virginia and Baltimore and Frederick as well. Bringing in a lot of new tax revenue for Prince George’s and the state of Maryland. And the good jobs that it will also bring to go with the tax revenue. And also allow for Maryland to really live up to being the Free State that we call ourselves by allowing for Marylanders to make their own decisions about gambling and other forms of entertainment. 

ABC Sports: MLB 1988- NLCS Game 4- Los Angeles Dodgers @ New York Mets: Full Game

Source:ABC Sports- Los Angeles Dodgers LF Kirk Gibson.

Source:The Daily Press

"Los Angeles Dodgers 5 at New York Mets 4, F/12 -- Backed by homers from Darryl Strawberry and Kevin McReynolds, Dwight Gooden and the Mets enjoyed a 4-2 lead in the 9th, and seem poised to take a 3-1 series lead. But Mike Scioscia, who had only three home runs all season, had other ideas, and his two-run homer forced extra frames. Then in the 12th, Kirk Gibson foreshadowed his forthcoming World Series dramatics with a solo, go-ahead dinger off Roger McDowell. But it wasn't over yet. In the bottom half of the inning it looked as though Gibson's heroics might go to waste, as the Mets put two men on against Tim Leary. So Manager Tommy Lasorda called on his "bulldog," Orel Hershiser, to close it out. Despite having pitched into the ninth in Game 1, not to mention seven innings pitched in Game 3 the night before, Hershiser recorded the final out to tie the series at two games apiece."

From MLB Vault

The Mets and their fans have to feel that 1988 was a year that got away from them. Because the Mets and Oakland Athletics were the two best all around teams in MLB that year and neither one of them won the World series. 

1988 goes to show you that baseball is a game where if you get great pitching and play great defense, all you need to do is score enough runs to win. Which is one more run than your opponent for every game that you win. That you don’t need a great lineup and even a very good lineup to win and be successful and even win the MLB World Series. 

The 1969 Mets proved that you don't need a good, let alone very good, or great offense, to win the World Series. So did the 1985 Kansas City Royals proved that and the 1988 Los Angeles Dodgers proved that as well. Probably the three worst World Series champions at least since divisional play started in 1969.

Movie Clips: Video: Rounders 1998: KGB, I Stick it in You!

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress

One of the best scenes from Rounders, with Mike McDermott played by Matt Damon just beating his long time nemesis KGB played by John Malkovich. And KGB obviously not feeling satisfied by that and trying to goad Mike into playing another around to get that money back. With Mike having two options. Walk away and leave up from where he stared and able to pay back his debts. Or get all of his money back and risk losing even more. Safe play obviously is to walk way, but like Mike said you can’t win what you don’t put in.

I’m not an expert on poker and gambling in general. But it obviously is gambling. And yes there’s skill involved and you need good skills at it to be successful and perhaps a little luck involved as well. But there’s gambling and there’s gambling and there are risks in doing anything really, especially professionally. And the good gamblers make calculated and educated risks. They just don’t walk away with money, leave owing money, because they had all the good hands at the game, or most of them.

Or had almost none of the good hands. They play their good hands and leave their bad ones. Without giving their opponents much if any idea when they have good hands and when they’re short. Which I think is the point that the Mike McDermott character played by Matt Damon was making. That gambling is not pure luck or about pure luck. But that you need good skills in it in order to be successful at it.

Accidentally In Love: 'Marilyn Monroe- Amazing'

Source:Accidentally In Love- The Amazing Hollywood Babydoll Marilyn Monroe (1926-1962)

Source:The Daily Press

“Just a quick vid i shot together . Enjoy 🙂 ……. feel free too comment” 

From Accidentally In Love 

Amazing can really sum up the short life of Marilyn Monroe. You can really do it in one word, it’s just that you have to apply it to so many aspects about her. Because there was nothing average about Marilyn in the thirty-six years that she lived from her very humble childhood.

Marilyn from being discovered in her early twenties, to her becoming the star that she became and how she presented herself throughout her career and as the star that she became.

Died fifty-one years ago and is still missed today and had she matured and learned to take care of herself, she could very well still be alive today and perhaps still out in public as a goddess in her late eighties. If anyone could do that, it would’ve been Marilyn Monroe. The woman of so many talents physical and professional, but lacked the maturity to see them through.

The New America Foundation: Peter Beinart- 'On The Rise of The New Left'

Source:New America Foundation- political commentator Peter Beinart about about the New-Left in America, the Millennial version.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"In a recent piece for The Daily Beast, New America Senior Fellow Peter Beinart wrote that the Democratic Party is making its next left turn—and driving away from the center." 

From the New America Foundation

The New-Left came alive in the late 1960s as part of the Baby Boom Generation to oppose the Vietnam War and who weren’t fans of capitalism and perhaps private enterprise all together. And wanted to see the rich be forced to give up a lot of their money to take care of the poor. As well as the environmental movement and what is called the gay rights movement. 

What happened to the Boomer version of the New-Left, they essentially formed what we know as the Green Party today: a left-wing, social democratic party, that is anti-war if not anti-military all together, want tough laws when it comes to protecting the environment.Greens, are anti-American capitalism and would like to see a new American economic system that is based around a welfare state. 

The Green Socialists (as I call them) also represents part of the Far-Left in the Democratic Party, who are only Democrats in a lot of cases so they can be part of a major political party, that at least shares their values and in some cases their ideas as well, who do not want to go the third-party route. 

My point being that this movement on the Left that the Democratic Leadership needs to listen to a certain extent, that they are not big enough or posses the resources to seriously cause a revolution in the Democratic Party and force them to change. They are only big enough to cost Democrats elections when they do not show up and vote.

The Republican Party has their fringe, obviously that gets talked a lot on this blog. But the Democratic Party has there’s that looks and is outside of the American mainstream on a lot of issues as well. Not saying they’re bad people, but most Americans like the American military and support our veterans and soldiers and everything else. 

The New-Left (on the other hand) sees our military as part of the problem when it comes to world peace and even as the bad guys. 

The New-Left in America is made up for three relevant political factions: 

Closeted Socialists in and outside of the Democrat Party, who are Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats (in name only) 

As well as self-described Socialists or Democratic Socialists, people like Senator Bernie Sanders (the only self-described Socialist in Congress, but not the only one) 

People who I at least would call Neo-Communists, people who aren't self-described as Communists and perhaps aren't looking to completely overthrow our democratic form of government, but want a real political revolution in America. 

And thanks to the American economy not being as strong as dominant as it was 15 years ago, radical movements like this can emerge, because you have a lot of people who are looking for real changes to our system.

Ragma Loka: Killing John F. Kennedy (2013) Starring Rob Lowe

Source:Ragma Loka- Rob Lowe as President John F. Kennedy, during his last days alive.

Source:The Daily Press

“Recounting the chaotic events that occurred in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, PARKLAND weaves together the perspectives of a handful of ordinary individuals suddenly thrust into extraordinary circumstances: the young doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital, Dallas’ chief of the Secret Service, an unwitting cameraman who captured what became the most watched and examined film in history.” 

From Ragma Loka

I saw bits and pieces of this movie and I didn’t think it was very good. Which is probably why I only saw bits and pieces of it. I’ve caught a little more of it when it has come back on with its repeats. The movie about Kennedy from Reelz in 2011, I thought was much better and perhaps that is why they covered the entire Kennedy presidency, at least his years as President. And I thought Greg Kinnear did a much better job playing Jack Kennedy than Rob Lowe.

In late 2013, the last few months there were several movies about JFK because of the fiftieth anniversary of the JFK assassination. Including a film from PBS about the life of JFK, which was the best of what I saw. But Killing Kennedy is fairly interesting, but it really just about the last year or so JFK, including the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1962 and the Cuban missile crisis. And this movie doesn’t go into great detail about John F. Kennedy as President.

What you see in this movie, is the stuff that is better suited for tabloid news and tabloid news fans. The women of JFK including his wife Jackie and of course all the affairs that President Kennedy had, including in the White House and including with women with dangerous organized connections. Including Judy Exner and Lee Oswald’s last year or so leading up to him assassinating President Kennedy. This movie I would give a 7.5 or 8, but it’s not a great movie.

New America Foundation: Daniel Deudney- Liberal Democracy vs. Autocracy

Source: New America Foundation-

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState Plus

I love the word liberalization as a Liberal, because it means opening things up and freeing people to live their lives. Which is what happened to Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 90s, as well as some of the former Slavic Russian republics that were part of the Soviet Union of Russia. And to the Southeastern Slavic states in the Balkans as well in the 1990s. And that is exactly what liberalism is.

Liberalization, freeing people up and allowing them to live in freedom, which seriously goes against the liberal stereotypes that liberalism is about big government. “And the state that the state knows best and that freedom is essentially dangerous because it just gives people freedom to make mistakes. So you need a superstate to take care of people and limit freedom to only things that do not harm society.” But that is not liberalism, but some Far-Left or Far-Right statist ideology whatever you want to call it other than liberalism. Because liberalism is not statist and not about a superstate.

But of course there are multiple forms of democracies just like there are multiple forms of autocracies. There are Democrats small d as well as what I would call big D and there are Autocrats. Liberal democracy is what America is about and that makes us different from Europe which tends to be more of a direct social democracy. With more of a majoritarian philosophy, where America is a constitutional federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy.

The majority cannot rule over the minority at will and there are certain limits to what the majority can do. And they do not always get what they want and our Constitution is a perfect example of that. Where we are never in danger of losing any of our constitutional amendments even if at some point fifty-one percent of the country thinks free speech, or self-defense is dangerous and those amendments must be repealed. In Europe in many cases laws and policies are put in place simply because that is what the people want at the time.

And like I said there are small d Democrats and there are Democrats. There are Liberal Democrats such as myself which is really how I define my political philosophy. And there are Conservative Democrats, people who tend to be Republicans and both essentially believe in liberal democracy. But differ when it comes to the role of government, but then there are also Social Democrats.

Social Democrats, or Democratic Socialists, tend to be more in favor of social democracy. More of a direct form of democracy as well as a bigger role for government in society. Especially as it relates to the economy to insure that more people have what they need to live well in life. More of a socialist type of Democrat that is more common in Europe. But we have Social Democrats in America as well.
New America Foundation: Liberal Democracy vs. Autocracy

Lamar Matic: Video: 76ers TV: NBA 1986-ECQF-Game 1-Washington Wizards @ Philadelphia 76ers: Wizards Score 18 Straight Points to Win

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress

Definitely one of the most surprising comeback victories of all-time and perhaps the best comeback in Bullets playoff history. You come back from eighteen points with four minutes left in the game especially in a playoff game, you are getting a lot of breaks with the team with the lead falling asleep and thinking they’ve already won the game. Which is what the 76ers did, as well as the Bullets never giving up and coming up with a lot of great plays. Especially on defense, but scoring every time they have the ball. When you have a big lead like this, all you really have to do is work the clock, don’t turn the ball over and hit your foul shots. You do all of those things and even if the other team scores every time they have the ball, they won’t have enough time to come all the way back. The 76ers failed to even do these basic fundamental things late in this game.

The Onion: Anthony Weiner Announces Bid For Whatever's Left

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press Plus

Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas even seceding from the United States. Who the hell needs them from my point of view. They need us so they can fund their own roads and for all that welfare insurance they get from taxpayers in wealthy states. So their people don’t starve and so their kids can go to school and so-fourth. And do we really need a Alabama and a Mississippi in the union, couldn’t we get by with just one of them, or how about they combine and become one state. And we would have on less ignorant state in the union. And do we really need to Carolinas and two Virginia’s? I’m not looking for Virginia to leave the union, but do we need a Virginia and a West Virginia.

West Virginia, is not seceding. Even they know like the rest of the country that they need America more than America needs them. But South Carolina might be a different story and the idea of an African-American, not only being elected, but reelected President of the United States, is appalling to a certain percentage of South Carolinians. And they may leave the country, some of the nuts in that state. My whole point about this is that the people in these states that are considering leaving the United States, good riddance. As far as I’m concern and maybe they can move somewhere and start some new Confederate Republic like they tried in the 1860s. And even if these states were to secede, which will never happen because even these states have enough intelligent people in them to know better.

People who were perhaps educated outside of these states, to understand that they need America more than we need them. That as much as they may bash the U.S. Government and public assistance, a lot of their people still need that. Just to get by. Which makes this whole discussion a little ridiculous, because this will never happen. Texas, won’t leave the United States. They have the most uninsured people in the country per-capita. They need us again for the public assistance that they collect. America, needs Texas to become energy independent. And get off of foreign oil. Which would be a boom for both our economy and foreign policy. But if these third-world American states in the Southeast want to take a hike, I’ll help them pack. And see how well they can do on their own.

Washington Post: Six Presidents Make The Case For Foreign Intervention

44th President of The United States-

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress: Washington Post: Six Presidents Make The Case For Foreign Intervention

America has a history of intervening on wars in other countries and making mistakes there. Like in Korea in the 1950s and Vietnam in the 1960s and the 2003 War in Iraq. Which makes it harder for American presidents to intervene in other countries even when innocent people are being murdered by their own government’s. Like we are seeing in Congress right now when it comes to Syria. But America also has a history of intervening in places to protect the innocent that went successfully.

Like Europe during World War II, Iraq in 1990-91, the Balkans in the mid and late 1990s and Libya two years ago. Which is why when we do things like this it has to be limited to where we have clear interests, where the case can be made. And where we can make a realistic and positive difference. You know the situation going in, you know what you would need to do to make a positive difference, you know what your capabilities are going in and what it will take to accomplish that mission successfully. And if you answer all of those questions positively that you know exactly what you’re doing and have a good plan and know you can pull it off successfully, then you make that call.

America should never intervene in other countries conflicts simply, because we don’t like the government there. Which is essentially what we did in 2003 in Iraq. Iraq didn’t even have the military to defend itself let alone threaten America or anyone else in the Middle East. They became a third world country with a third world military. Thanks to the 1991 Gulf War, all the economic sanctions and the weapons inspectors taking out their weapons. America should only intervene to defend our own interests like defending an ally and when we can play a positive role. And also when we’re not by ourselves and have others that can help us.

Scott McGee: 'TCM Star of The Month For September: Kim Novak'

Source:Scot McGee- Turner Classic Movies honoring Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak as their Star of The Month, for September, 2013. Well-deserved. 

Source:The Daily Press

":60 promo for Turner Classic Movies Star of the Month Kim Novak, September 2013. Written/produced by Scott McGee.  Edited by Jay Bellissimo. Voiced by Sylvia Villagran."

From Scott McGee

A gorgeous sexy baby who always leaves you wanting to see more of her movies and appearances. I haven’t seen many women who are that gorgeous, sexy as well as baby-face adorable, who makes her characters seem so real, because she makes her characters part of her. Which is how Kim Novak acted and why she’s been so successful.

The phrase always leaves you wanting more can almost sound negative if not insulting, because it implies someone, or something is not good enough. But in Kim Novak’s case that means she’s so hot and great that you want to see as much of her as possible. Like in:“please don’t go away.”

I believe Kim Novak is almost an under appreciated Hollywood Goddess and actress, because she gave up her career pretty quickly. She was finished acting by the late 1960s when she was in her mid-30s when she probably would have at least one if not two more great decades ahead of her where should could have had a great movie career. Or perhaps done TV as well and had a whole list of great roles in front of her. Because she was versatile and could play anyone. That goes to the always leaves you wanting more. Because she was so good and looked so great that you never wanted to see her go away.

Kim Novak or Baby Kim (as I call her) is truly one of the best actress’s I have ever seen and one of the best looking. This hot baby-faced woman with the great body who was also a hell of an actress who again made her characters seem and brought them to real-life. Who also had this adorable silly side that could make you laugh. And yet her career as an actress was only about 10-15 years and that might even include her brief return in 1985 to work on prime-time soap operas. Who could have had a long great career and be remembered as one of the best actress’s of her generation if not all-time.

ABC News: This Week- Striking Syria: 'This Week’s Roundtable'

Source:ABC News- This Week roundtable, talking about a possible American air strike in Syria.

Source:FRS FreeState

"Rep. Adam Kinzinger Donna Brazile, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Greta Van Susteren and Dan Senor.

From ABC News

President Barack Obama, in the political battle of his life trying to make the case two years late in my point of view. We should’ve been debating and talking about military intervention in Syria in 2011. Which would’ve saved million of lives. But as the saying goes, it is what it is. And President Obama is in the political situation that he is today and will have to make a very good case to avoid losing embarrassing votes this week in Congress.

The case for going into Syria, is like that in the Balkans in the 1990s, Bosnia and then later Kosovo. Saving innocent lives from being murdered by their own government. And giving the Syrian rebels a fighting chance, literally, to take on the Assad Regime and hopefully defeat them. And bring a more responsible government to Syria that can hopefully be represented of the country. And govern Syria responsibility.

But we do nothing, innocent Syrians will continue to be murdered by their own government. Why the West says that’s awful and you shouldn’t do that. But without the, stones to do anything to stop them.

Terrie Hawkes: In Tight Leather Jeans in Boots

Source:The Daily Press- Leather jeans in boots on the street.

Source:The Daily Press

"Terrie Hawks in tight leather pants." Originally from Terrie Hawkes, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

Didn't get to see the face of Terrie Hawkes, whoever she is and if I'm ignorant about that, I apologize, but we didn't get to see her face until the end of this video. But the quick look of her, she looks like a gorgeous blonde and of course with a great body. Tall and well-built, with the perfect outfit to highlight those features. The skin-tight leather jeans in boots and with a great walk to show people who she looks and sexy she is. 

And I just love women who know they are sexy and proud that others see that as well. I just would've made this video at least two-minutes longer with the same woman and the same outfit and gotten to see more of her face and you would've gotten a very good look at her face and body in the same shots in that great outfit. The tight leather jeans in boots that she pulls off perfectly and about as well as it can be done. I just wish she did it longer and this would've been a great sexy, but tasteful video of a gorgeous sexy women in a very stylish outfit and not looking like a porn star.

Bob Dylan & Joan Baez: 1963 March on Washington

Source:Reuters- Joan Baez and Bob Dylan performing at the 1963 March On Washington.

Source:The Daily Press 

"Singers Joan Baez and Bob Dylan perform together during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in this August 28, 1963 file photo shot by U.S. Information Agency photographer Rowland Scherman and provided to Reuters by the U.S. National Archives in Washington on August 21, 2013. In the coming week, Washington will play host to an array of events marking the 50th anniversary of the march and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech.

REUTERS/Rowland Scherman/U.S. Information Agency/U.S. National Archives (UNITED STATES – Tags: POLITICS ANNIVERSARY ENTERTAINMENT) ATTENTION EDITORS – THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS.THIS PICTURE IS DISTRIBUTED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BY REUTERS, AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS" 

From Reuters 

"Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, the Freedom Singers, and Len Chandler performing 'Eyes On The Prize' at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, August 28th 1963. The song is a well-known folk song largely associated with the Civil Rights Movement.

Source is straight from the archives, albeit covered with a logo and timestamps." 

Source:History in Motion- Eyes On The Prize performed by Joan Baez and Bob Dylan, and others.

From History in Motion 

Eyes On The Prize is the perfect song I believe to close out the 1963 March On Washington, because it told the American Civil Rights Movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King and his followers not to lose focus and that there's still much work to do. 

Keep in mind, this is in the late summer of 1963 in Washington, when it's still hot and humid around there and a few months before President John F. Kennedy was assassinated and just a couple months after President Kennedy publicly endorsed the civil rights legislation that was in Congress. 

The 1964 Civil Rights Law hadn't even been passed yet, that didn't happen to the summer of the 1964. Which meant African-Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities could still be denied their constitutional rights and access to American society simply because of their race or ethnicity. 

I think what the summer of 1963 is about with the March On Washington sort of being the Super Bowl of that summer (even though the Super Bowl was 4 years away) is that to paraphrase Bob Dylan: times were a changin. I believe the 1950s finally ended in the summer of 63 culturally and a lot of younger Americans recognized the new America where America would be for everyone. Not just for Anglo-Saxon males. 

The civil rights movement was part of the new America, but Hippies come into force politically and culturally in 1965 with so many Americans now feeling the freedom to be themselves and not have to live and think just like their parents and grandparents. 

Frantz Kebreau: Malcolm X- Black Democrats are 'Traitors'

Source:Frantz Kebreau- When Europeans ruled over Africans in America 

Source:The Daily Press Plus

Malcolm X explaining perfectly why African-Americans and I would add any race of people in America shouldn’t be tied down to any political party in America. Because once a political party feels that certain voters will always vote for them and that they have no other place to go, that is when they get taken advantage and the party leadership feels we no longer have to listen to them. “Because they are going to vote for us anyway” and that is what happened to African-Americans in the 1950s and 60s. They got taken advantage of by the Democratic Party because the right-wing Dixiecrats in Congress the Southern Caucus were blocking civil rights legislation, while Republicans in Congress were in favor of it especially in the Northeast and Midwest. And today the parties have essentially flipped flopped geographically.
Frantz Kebreau: Malcolm X- Black Democrats Are Traitors

Minister Malcolm X: Message To America

Source: Islam 6639-

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

Malcolm X was correct in the sense that the racial discrimination that African-Americans faced from the time the African slaves were freed in the 1860s, until the 1960s with the civil rights laws was a human rights problem. But where he was wrong was that the U.S. Government was able to solve these problems at least in the sense that all Americans are supposed to be treated under law equally with the same constitutional rights. And generally that is true now with the passage of the civil rights laws of the 1960s.

All Americans are entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as every other American in America. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender or religion. Does that mean that all the laws are always enforced equally for all Americans. Of course not, because any system that is run by humans won’t be run perfectly. Mistakes will be made and you’ll have bad apples, so to speak and bad people in any system.

People who feel some people because of their race shouldn’t be treated as well as other Americans of a different race. But under law we are all entitled to the same rights and responsibilities. And under law we’re all supposed to be treated equally under law. That wasn’t the case pre-1960s civil rights laws. And that is one thing that Malcolm X never understood, but unfortunately he didn’t live long enough to see that.
Minister MalcolmX: Message To The Grassroots

David Von Pein: '1964 Interview With Karen Carlin'

Source:David Von Pein- local Dallas, Texas media interviewing Jack Ruby's employee Karen Carlin, in 1964.

Source:The Daily Press

“1964 INTERVIEW WITH KAREN CARLIN (AN EMPLOYEE OF JACK RUBY’S)” 

From David Von Pein

Perhaps one of the most famous nightclub employees of all time. I don’t know much about Karen Carlin and maybe that is because that there isn’t much to know about her, but what I get is that she was an attractive woman who worked for Jack Ruby at Jack Ruby’s nightclub, The Carousel in Dallas. And worked there simply because she needed the money. But that she’s not someone who has much if any information about Jack Ruby other than Ruby might have shot Lee Harvey Oswald the assassin of President John F. Kennedy. She simply worked for the man and only worked there because she needed the money. Because her husband had a hard time holding a good job.

You have to know that this whole story had to do with the assassination of an American President, John F. Kennedy who was President of the United States. This was so very new to most people in the country and the first presidential assassination that was covered in the electronic age with network TV and network news. And any person that might of had some connection to someone who was a big part of this story was automatically seen as suspect, or at least as a potential suspect.

Karen Carlin, not only knew Jack Ruby the killer of Lee Oswald who assassinated the President, but she worked for him. Which meant that people automatically assumed that she must know something important about this story. 

David Von Pein: 'INTERVIEW WITH JACK RUBY (DECEMBER 16, 1966)'

Source:David Von Pein- Dallas nightclub owner, mobster associate, and Lee Harvey Oswald assassin, Jack Ruby.

"Portions of an interview with Jack Ruby, recorded at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Texas, on December 16, 1966, which was just 18 days before Ruby's death.

Jack Ruby was the Dallas nightclub operator who shot and killed President John F. Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, on November 24, 1963." 

From David Von Pein

The Jack Ruby episode is a perfect example of why so many conspiracy theories came about after the John F. Kennedy assassination. Because first an American president is assassinated and then the assassin, or at least accused assassin is shot and killed as well. And left many Americans to believe that this is too unreal and can't be natural acts. 

These events after the JFK assassination are things that would explain these crazy activities from happening like forces in the Federal Government working to see that Jack Kennedy and Lee Oswald are killed. Because they saw Jack Kennedy as a threat and that Lee Oswald knew too much about not only the assassination itself, but the all of the powers associated with the JFK assassination. And didn't want their power and control to be threatened.

We'll never know the full story of what Jack Ruby knew about this case, because he died three years after the JFK assassination. And we might already know everything that he knows about this case. But Jack Ruby and his associations with organized crime figures in Dallas and the hatred that the Italian Mafia had for President Kennedy and his administration leave a lot people wondering if they put Ruby up to killing the President, because they didn't want Oswald to talk. 

The only conspiracy theory that has any credibility whatsoever that leaves intelligent sane people like Robert Blakey who worked for the House Assassinations Committee wondering if someone other than Lee Oswald was involved in the JFK assassination, is the possible organized crime connection.

Mel Kyche: The Sheriff of Fractured Jaw 1958- Jayne Mansfield's San Francisco

Source:Mel Kyche- Hollywood Babydoll Jayne Mansfield, singing San Francisco, in The Sheriff of Fractured Jaw, from 1958.

Source:The Daily Press

"Jayne Mansfield dans "The Sheriff of Fractured Jaw."

From Mel Kyche

The Sheriff of Fractured Jaw is a pretty good movie, but it was a great movie for Jayne Mansfield. Because it displayed all of her talents. She really wasn’t a Hollywood bimbo, but she wanted people to believe that for some reason and make money from it. She was very intelligent and talented and knew what she was doing, at least most of the time when she was sober. And had great comedic, as well as singing and dancing talents, that allowed her to do so many different things.

Jayne, could’ve been a full-time actress, singer or comedian, but instead used all of those talents generally at the same time. And as a result made a big star for her herself. And it is too bad she just didn’t live much longer, instead of dying at the age of thirty-four in 1967. Had she took care of herself, she might still be performing today in her early eighties.