Thursday, August 22, 2013

FDR Library: Franklin D. Roosevelt- The New Deal

Source:Time Toast- President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal.
Source:FRS FreeState 

“Conversations host Harry Kreisler welcomes Pulitzer Prize winning historian David M. Kennedy for a discussion of what is to be learned from The Great Depression. Professor Kennedy, author of Freedom From Fear, The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945, analyzes the genius of Roosevelt’s leadership, the tragedy of Herbert Hoover, the relationshp between FDR’s short term goals to deal with the economy and his long term goals to establish a new political coalition and create institutions to stabilize American capitalism and more equitably distribute its resources. Professor Kennedy goes on to draw parallels wtih the current global economic crisis and the lessons that the Obama administration could learn from the New Deal.”

Source:UC Berkley Events- Presidential historian David Kennedy, talking about Franklin D. Roosevelt.
From UC Berkeley Events

As a Liberal myself I don’t like hearing Franklin Roosevelt being viewed as a Liberal, especially when it comes to civil liberties, equal rights, the United States Constitution, and individual liberty broadly, areas where President Roosevelt doesn’t score very well with me and other Americans.

I mean President Roosevelt is a bigger inspiration for today’s Neoconservatives, who take the view that national security is more important than individual liberty. And that national security concerns even trump the U.S. Constitution. As we’ve seen with the so-called War on Terror like with the Patriot Act.

The way his the FDR Administration dealt with German, Italian and Japanese-Americans during World War II, three important ethnic groups in America, groups who all immigrated or descended from those main countries that the United States were fighting against during World War II. Germany, Italy and Japan, these ethnic groups were being detained and held by the Roosevelt Administration and held in concentration camps. Similar to how German-Jews were being detained by the Nazi Germans in Germany, because of their ethnicity and were seen as threats to the state because of their ethnic background. And seen loyal to someone other than their home country.

Now of course these Americans were certainly treated better than the European-Jews. But what they have in common is they were being held because of their ethnicity. No real Liberal would have a policy, or support a policy that detained people because of their ethnicity, or race. So on that score alone FDR scores really bad as a Liberal.

Neoconservative, comes to mind when I look at Franklin Roosevelt when it comes to civil liberties and individual freedom. A Liberal, wouldn’t have done that and been much farther ahead of FDR when it came to civil and equal right for all Americans. Not treating non-Anglo-Saxon-Americans as intruders in their own country.

When you think of economic liberalism, it is about using government to empower people in need and other people. So they have the tools that they need to live well in life be successful. Not use government to take care of people and not expect anything from them on their own. And make them dependent on the state for their economic well-being.

The New Deal was successful because it created a system that people could go to when they were in need and simply did not have the economic resources to take care of themselves.

That is where the safety net not welfare state starts. But not where it ends and in many cases like with Welfare Insurance, that is where the safety net ends with the New Deal. So in that sense FDR was more of a Progressive in his first two terms and  more of a  Social Democrat in his last term as someone who wanted to use government to take care of people like with a welfare state. And not using government to empower people to be able to take care of themselves.

And then you get to civil rights where President Roosevelt was either not interested in it, or didn’t believe all Americans deserved the same constitutional rights and be treated equally under law. Which again no real Liberal believes in and you get to two key areas where FDR doesn’t score very well as a Liberal: civil liberties and equal rights.

But where FDR does very well as a Progressive or Social Democrats when it came to economic policy, has to do with the safety net and infrastructure investment. And other government work projects programs.

But where FDR does score very well as a Progressive is where it comes to infrastructure investment, economic regulation, not economic statism, or state-ownership which is different.

And foreign policy where FDR was a clear Liberal Internationalist and a big reason why America won World War II and the Cold War and FDR does very well as a Progressive, but not in the other key areas of progressivism. Which is about using government to help people in need, not run their lives for them. While protecting our individual rights.

I’m not sure Franklin Roosevelt ever knew his own political philosophy, or ever had one. He was someone at least as President that took issues as they came and did what he thought was best. But someone who developed an economic philosophy as he became President and became a real economic Progressive. Someone who wanted an activist government to make government a great country for more Americans.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

NBC Sports: MLB 1988-GOW-7/23-San Francisco Giants @ St. Louis Cardinals: Full Game

Source:NBC Sports announcer Joe Garagiola interviewing San Francisco Giants 1B Will Clark.

Source:The Daily Press

“1988 07 23 NBC GOW Giants at Cardinals”


Welcome to Busch Memorial Stadium, home of the baseball's St. Louis Cardinals. And that's all I have to say about this photo, because the video from which this photo is from, is not currently available right now.

Source:NBC Sports- The Giants and Cardinals, from Busch Memorial Stadium in St. Louis, in 1988. 
What a difference a year or a season makes for both the Giants and Cardinals. They were both clearly the two best teams in the National League in 1987 and in the Cardinals case in 1988 were fighting to stay out of last place in the NL East in 1988. A division they played in until MLB realigned in 1994 and went to three divisions in both leagues. And in the Giants case, never making a real run at the NL West title at least by the All Star break and finishing eleven games behind their arch-rival Los Angeles Dodgers out of first place.

When teams when their division in MLB, especially over a 162 game schedule, unless they are very deep in talent with great chemistry and a great manager, they tend to have a lot going for them. And are able to avoid making critical mistakes during the season that costs them big games. And cost them games that might not seem big at the time, but come back to cost them in September when they’re fighting to make the playoffs or win their division. Both the Giants and Cardinals were able to avoid big mistakes and injuries in 1987. But 1988 they got hit by those things over and over and it really cost them.

Monday, August 12, 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder: On Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentences

Source:Citizens Action Now- U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (Democrat,Washington D.C.)

Source:FRS FreeState

"Eric Holder Getting Rid of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing For Drug Crimes" 


We simply send too many people to prison for offenses that do not deserve prison time. And we simply can’t afford to do that anymore, because we can’t afford the costs of taking care of people who otherwise can take care of themselves and do not represent real threats to society. And we need to reform our sentencing guidelines to fix this problem: 

Drug addicts, who are guilty of nothing other than being addicted to legal drugs, need to be in drug rehab at their expense. And other non-violent offenders who don’t represent a major threat should be in halfway houses. Again at their expense and save our prisons for people who need to be there.

Attorney General Eric Holder, is not saying we are too tough on violent crime and violent criminals. People who deserve tough sentences and need to be in prison for long sentences. He’s addressing how we handle non-violent offenses and offenders. Non-violent-criminals who don’t represent any real if any threat to society when it comes to either the economy or our physical security. He’s saying there are better as well as more cost-effective ways to dealing with non-violent offenders. Especially offenders who are simply in prison for illegal drug use, or possession.

People who view themselves as fiscal conservatives, should hate how the United States deals with non-violent offenders in America, especially as it relates to the so-called War on Drugs. Which is an overwhelming failure in America. 

And we waste so much money locking people up and having American taxpayers pick up the cost of living for people who otherwise could take care of themselves if they weren’t addicted to drugs. Who don’t represent any real threat to society either from an economic or security standpoint. And we have to do better in America for our taxpayers as well as the people who guilty of nothing other than being drug addicts.

Saturday, August 10, 2013

PHID: ‘Mi Latina Prefeirda En Tight Jeans'


Source:Phid- Sexy Baby, in Lee denim jeans in boots.
Source:The Daily Press

“Mi latina preferida en tight jeans – superguapa. Chica latina en tight jeans. Quiero mucho esta video, quisiera conocerla.”

From PHID 

Mui sexy y benita bebe chica! Love this woman, actually I never met her and only have seen her on YouTube. I know shocking, you’re probably grasping for air right now. If you are morbidly obese, perhaps you need the Heimlich maneuver to stop your choking, if someone’s arms are long enough to get around your body and perform it on you and one of your steaks flies out of your mouth. I’ll confess: I’ve only seen this woman on YouTube, but over and over again. It would feel like stalking if I wasn’t just watching her on YouTube.

I use to watch a lot of TV Espanol or Spanish TV, ( for all of you English speakers out there reading this, that’s right both of you ) and a lot of times some older movie, lets say 10-15 years old would come on and it would be an action film. A sexy female police detective or perhaps a sexy female private detective or perhaps bounty hunter. Maybe a girlfriend of the guy who is supposed to be the hero of the movie and she would be dressed very similar like this. Great body, very cute and beautiful wearing tight denim jeans and sexy boots. The woman in this video reminds of those movies.

Friday, August 9, 2013

Warner Brothers: Fair Game (1995) Starring Cindy Crawford & William Baldwin

Source:Alamy- Cindy Crawford & Billy Baldwin couldn't get enough of each other. So they handcuffed themselves to each other. LOL

Source:The Daily Press

“Film Still from “Fair Game” Cindy Crawford, William Baldwin © 1995 Warner Brothers Photo Credit: Jon Farmer File Reference" 

From Alamy

“Max Kirkpatrick is a cop who protects Kate McQuean, a civil law attorney, from a renegade KGB team out to terminate her.

Director: Andrew Sipes
Writers: Paula Gosling (novel), Charlie Fletcher (screenplay)
Stars: William Baldwin, Cindy Crawford, Steven Berkoff”

Source:Trailer Chan- Billy Baldwin & Cindy Crawford: hot for each other?

From Trailer Chan

I don't remember the source of this photo. But I believe this is Cindy Crawford simply taking a break from filming. 

Source: The Daily Press- Supermodel Cindy Crawford; In Fair Game, from 1995
I’ll be one of the first to admit that Fair Game is not a great movie, not even a very good movie. It’s a very entertaining movie with a lot of funny lines and some funny scenes. (Especially the edited version of the movie from TNT)

Take Cindy Crawford out of this movie and I sure as hell don’t have much reason to watch it. Actually I liked the Russian female terrorist. But probably not enough reason to watch a ninety-minute film by herself. Which is the Segway for what I really like about this movie.

Cindy Crawford, arguably the top supermodel of all-time and still one hell of a goddess today at 47 was my main motivation for seeing this movie 18 years ago and why I still see it again from time to time today. She’s one of the top goddess’ of all-time. About 5’9, 120 pounds or so, with gorgeous red hair and gorgeous eyes and a hot, baby-face. When she smiles back then and today you really get to see how adorable she is as well. She reminds me a lot of Raquel Welch and Eva Mendes reminds me of Cindy today as well as Raquel. Women who are hot, but almost can be little girl adorable.

And that is what you see in this scene from Fair Game, a gorgeous, sexy baby-faced woman, whose on the run from terrorists. Who needs access to a computer and she sees a computer geek who could help her and uses her goddess sex appeal to get from him exactly what she wants. Perhaps giving this poor schmuck the ride of his life, but a ride he’ll never forget. Giving him nothing to complain about from her since he’ll probably never forget her. A movie that’s not exactly a very clever movie, but does a good job at taking advantage of the tools around it. Like using sexuality to get what the sexy character wants.

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Mike Richman: ‘The Redskins In The 1960s & Their Explosive Offense’

Source:Mike Richman talking about Redskins QB Sonny Jurgensen.

Source:The Daily Press

“Redskins historian Michael Richman on “NFL Films”

Video 02: The Redskins in the 1960s and their explosive offense.”

From Mike Richman 

Mike Richman had it almost perfect there. The 1960s Redskins looked more like an American Football League team than an NFL team, (if you’re familiar with the AFL) only that they were in the NFL and had to play by NFL rules. The AFL wanted to be a passing league with liberalized offenses where teams were not only encouraged to throw the ball, but throw it a lot and throw it deep. The Oakland Raiders of that era were not the only vertical spread offensive team in the AFL. The San Diego Chargers ran the same offense under Sid Gilman who was a huge inspiration for Al Davis.

And I mention this because again the Redskins as an NFL team obviously had to play by NFL rules. And back then and up until 1978 after Sonny Jurgensen had already been out of the NFL for three years, the NFL rules back then favored the defenses and big, power-run, ball control offenses. Where you ran the ball 3-5 plays or more, where you played field possession and hoped to get a big takeaway from your defense, a big return in the kicking game. Where you relied on your defense a lot to win the game. And hoped you had a big day running the ball and your QB hit some passes down the field and didn’t turn it over.

What made the Redskins special during the 1960s was not that they only had one winning season, which was under Vince Lombardi in 1969 at 7-5. (Who didn’t even loose in Washington) Or that they didn’t make the playoffs the entire decade.

What made the 1960s Redskins special was that they went against the grain in the NFL. They had an 1960s AFL offense that was playing in a 1950s America NFL where it was almost considered immoral to throw the ball, or score quickly and take big chances on offense in order to score. And it wasn’t really by design either. They didn’t have a strong offensive line, they couldn’t run the ball worth a damn for the most part and their defense barely stopped anybody during this period.

But what the Redskins had was arguably the best quarterback in pro football during this era (other than John Unitas) in Sonny Jurgensen. A QB that could get rid of the ball quickly, who had a strong, accurate arm and touch and who moved well in the pocket. As well as perhaps the two best receivers on the outside in the NFL during that decade in Charley Taylor and Bobby Mitchell who both had good size, hands and speed. And then you add Jerry Smith in the middle at TE who should also be in the Hall of Fame and you’re talking about an offense that could put up 25-30 points a game against anyone. Even if they’re giving up more than that in every game.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Film is Now Movie Trailers: AC News- One For The Money (2011) Starring Katherine Heigl


Source:Film is Now Movie Trailers- Katherine Heigl as a bounty hunter.
Source:The Daily Press

“One for the Money – Movie Trailer: Unemployed and newly-divorced Stephanie Plum lands a job at her cousin’s bail-bond business, where her first assignment puts her on the trail of a wanted local cop from her romantic past.” 


” A proud, born-and-bred Jersey girl, Stephanie Plum’s got plenty of attitude, even if she’s been out of work for the last six months and just lost her car to a debt collector. Desperate for some fast cash, Stephanie turns to her last resort: convincing her sleazy cousin to give her a job at his bail bonding company…as a recovery agent. True, she doesn’t even own a pair of handcuffs and her weapon of choice is pepper spray, but that doesn’t stop Stephanie from taking on Vinny’s biggest bail-jumper: former vice cop and murder suspect Joe Morelli – yup, the same sexy, irresistible Joe Morelli who seduced and dumped her back in high school. — (C) Lionsgate”

Source:Digital Movies Now- check out Katherine Heigl.

From Digital Movies Now

When I first heard about and watched One For The Money, I thought Katherine Heigl was way too cute to play a bounty hunter. I don’t care how tall she is and how great of a body she and she’s tall and very sexy physically, but she comes off as a big kid. Like a baby-face teenage girl many times and didn’t look much older in this movie than she did in that 1998 Chuckey movie she did. So in that way she was sort of perfect for this part, because the people she was trying to catch wouldn’t take her seriously and she would perhaps be underestimated.

But then you watch the movie and see the scenes where Katherine Heigl is actually involved in bounty hunting and catching suspects and she handles herself very well and even tackles a guy running away from his home suspected I believe on drug dealing. So her persona and appearance of: “aw, you’re so cute and sweet, I have nothing to worry about with you.” Worked very well for her and her character because she did know what she was doing once she learned the ropes and handled herself very well as a bounty hunter.

What I was expecting from One For The Money when I finally saw it on demand this summer, was perhaps somewhat cheesy bad written movie that was mostly about a sexy, gorgeous baby-face goddess kicking ass in tight skinny jeans in boots. With some explosive action scenes and car chases and perhaps some humor in it. This movie has all of that, except the writing is much better and it is actually a very good action/comedy and fairly well-written and Katherine Heigl and Jason O’Mara the two main bounty hunters do a very good job in it.

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy