National Geographic: America's Hardest Prisons

Source:National Geographic Channel- with a documentary about America's toughest prisons.

"LOCKDOWN plunges head-first into the gritty world of America's most dangerous prisons. It's an unprecedented immersion into life behind bars; up-close and personal with some of the most hardened criminals in the world." 

From Nat Geo TV 

"If you like this movie , please LIKE , COMMENT , and SHARE it for your friend . Remind SUBSCRIBE my channel . Thank you very much !" 

Source:Discovery Full- with a documentary about America's toughest prisons.

From Discovery Full 

There's the old saying that if you do the crime, you should do the time. I actually agree with that and in a perfect, world (which anything run by humans is not perfect) that saying would be easy and correct enough. The problem is we obviously don't live in a perfect world. 

We need prisons and units for criminals who are not just still violent, but not ready to give up their violent criminal careers. But at the same time even for the worst of our prison inmates who have release dates, there needs to be some incentive for these people to get their lives together and have the opportunity to make productive, legitimate lives for themselves. Even if we will always need supermax prisons, we need to have inventive for those folks to at the very least get with the program in those prisons and have incentive to transfer down to a less secure prison, where they would have a real opportunity at getting real prison rehabilitation.

The Hill: Representative Raul Grijalva: 'What We Need is a New Deal'

Source:The Hill- U.S. Representative Raul Grijalva (Democrat, Arizona) Chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

"Fiscal negotiations are the talk of Washington, but they’re not the

talk around the dinner tables of millions of hard-working Americans. As

usual, the conventional wisdom — and a lot of the media — is missing

the real story.

The real story is that we have a jobs shortage crisis in this country, and Republicans haven’t lifted a finger to help. Democrats have put up the Restore the American Dream for the 99% Act, the American Jobs Act and several other landmark pieces of jobs legislation that Republicans killed sight unseen. They didn’t even pretend to have alternatives.

{mosads}It’s one thing to miss a story as it happens. Reporters can’t be everywhere all the time. But it’s quite another to miss the real story, day in and day out, week after week after week, for more than a year. Voters care about the economy first and foremost, and people are hurting for Washington to show some leadership.

Working people aren’t talking about Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-S.C.) latest comments or who’s taking Grover Norquist’s no-taxes pledge. They’re talking about putting food on the table. Doesn’t anyone out there want to tell that story? The Progressive Caucus introduced the Restore the American Dream for the 99% Act, which would create millions of jobs and rebuild U.S. infrastructure, because we’ve heard it all across the country and we know it’s past time Congress made itself useful.

For some reason, jobs aren’t something editors seem to know how to cover or professional deficit scolds know how to deal with. That doesn’t make unemployment any less real. Jobs are the issue driving our economy. Getting more people to work and paying taxes will bring much greater rewards than cutting school lunch programs. The media, the Beltway gang, and some of my colleagues who can’t wait to cut a deal — at any cost to the country and their own constituents — just don’t seem to understand that.

Unemployment in this country will be much too high until the federal government stops twiddling its thumbs and gets serious. The American people were just subjected to an 18-month monologue from Mitt Romney and the Republican Party about the need to cut corporate taxes and let private-sector wizards fix everything out of the goodness of their hearts. That argument was tossed out on its ear. Pundits, and my friends in Congress, should take notice.

The “serious people” who get paid to talk about being tough on working people, grandparents and the middle class — instead of bringing our tax code in line with reality or getting Americans back to work — are only kidding themselves. Voters aren’t buying it. With 60 percent of voters in the CNN Election Day exit poll saying the economy is their No. 1 issue, and only 17 percent saying the same of the deficit, why can’t we even have a conversation in Washington about getting the economy back on track?

We can’t have that conversation, apparently, because the Republican Party doesn’t want to have that conversation. What jobs bills have they put out there that would actually create jobs, instead of cutting tax rates and hoping the benefits trickle down to the rest of us? What have they said — before, during or after the election — that suggests they really get it? I can’t be the only one who’s noticed this.

But that’s not what gets covered. What gets covered is the idea that we have to cut Social Security, even though it doesn’t contribute a nickel to the deficit, because a few wealthy special interest groups think it’s a good idea. What gets covered is Tea Party noisemaking about ending Medicare and Medicaid, as though that will ever happen. What gets covered is who’s up and who’s down in the halls of power each minute of the day according to some magic barometer only a few people really understand.

Let’s stop talking about fiscal deadlines as though they’re a one-way cliff to the abyss and start talking about them as opportunities to fix what’s really ailing this country. We’re millions of jobs short of full employment not because of Social Security, but because the financial collapse put people out of work and our policies haven’t caught up yet.

We need direct employment efforts on the scale of the New Deal — building new roads and schools, hiring more teachers and nurses, training young people for future careers — if we’re really going to get ourselves back on track. Massive cuts and radical redistribution of wealth upward to the richest 2 percent aren’t the answer. Voters know it and they said it loud and clear. Why isn’t Washington listening? Why isn’t the media listening?

Grijalva, a Democrat from Arizona, is co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus." 

From The Hill

President Harry S. Truman: First Speech To Congress (1945)

Source:History- President Harry S. Truman (Democrat, Missouri) addressing a joint session of Congress for the very first time as President, in 1945.

“On April 16, 1945, Harry Truman makes his first official appearance before Congress as president of the United States, after being sworn in following the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt four days earlier. In his speech, Truman pledges to bring World War II to a victorious end.”

From History 

Source:James Miller Center- President Harry S. Truman (Democrat, Missouri) I believe meeting with his National Security Council.

“You can listen to the full speech at the Miller Center’s Presidential Speeches page…

From the James Miller Center

 Imagine living on a desert island all by yourself or locked up in solitary confinement for months and then suddenly being released one day and being told you have to run a very large organization. Like I don’t know, wait I got it: the Executive Branch of the United States.

Granted Harry Truman was only Vice President for a few months before he became President in 1945. But President Franklin Roosevelt and the cabinet didn’t keep the Vice President in the light when he was there. He didn’t know about the atomic bomb program and wasn’t getting briefings about what was going on in World War II that was still happening both in Europe and the Far East when Truman became President in 1945. Very few people had even ever heard of Vice President Harry Truman before he became President, even though he was in the Senate ten years before that.

So when our brand new President of the United States Harry Truman, goes up to Congress for the second time since leaving the Senate to speak to his former colleagues there, I don’t think anyone there knew what to expect from him and what President Truman might say.

Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, probably knew Harry Truman fairly well. at least in the Senate. But Truman at least before becoming President wasn’t a very highly respected man. He was basically seen as a small town hick from Missouri. Who had never seen a big city before he came to Washington in the 1930s.

Harry Truman was always a very under appreciated and underrated man who thrived on that, because even though he was never someone who commanded high confidence, was very intelligent and had good judgment and tended to make the right decisions.

So when President Harry Truman speaks to Congress for the first time as President in 1945, he was speaking 535 men for the most part in Congress and millions of Americans, who in Congress’s case didn’t know what to expect from him. And in America’s case was hearing from their band new leader who they never even heard of.

President Truman was also replacing perhaps the most popular president in American history in Franklin Roosevelt during a time when America was still at war, when the economy was still trying to recover from the Great Recession.

President Truman was a man who until he was fifty-years old, never had a job with much responsibility since leaving the Army after World War I. The U.S. Senate was his first major job where he had any real power and responsibility on his own. And he was 50 when he became a Senator. So this all made for a very interesting presidential address. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Senate Democrats: Majority Leader Harry Reid: 'On Filibuster Reform: I Want The Record To Be Very Clear'

Source:Senate Democrats- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)

"Nevada Senator Harry Reid addresses the need for filibuster reform from the Senate floor." 

From the Senate Democrats

What Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is talking about here is that he's not trying to or wants to eliminate the filibuster. He just wants the minority party whether it's the Republican Party like today or the Democratic Party, just six years ago, to actually have to filibuster in order to slow down or block legislation. And he makes an excellent point. 

The way the Senate cloture rule (which is the filibuster rule) works today, is that the Majority Leader (in this case Harry Reid) brings legislation or executive nominees to the floor that Senate Democrats and the Obama Administration want to pass and confirm. And Leader Reid generally has a majority to pass that legislation or confirm those nominees. But without first consulting with the Minority Leader (in this case Mitch McConnell) or the Ranking Republican on whatever the committee that has jurisdiction over that legislation. 

Then what the Minority Leader (in this case Mitch McConnell) does, since he has 47-100 members of the Senate, is try to line up at least 41 of his own members to block the legislation that Senate Republicans haven't even been consulted on, to block the legislation or nominee from being passed or confirmed. And the exact same thing happened in the 2000s when there were 2 Republican Senate's and George W. Bush was President and Tom Daschle and then later Harry Reid was the Senate Minority Leader. 

What Leader Reid wants to do and this won't happen at least until the next Congress is sworn in after the New Year, is pass a rule that says if you want to block legislation, you have to actually hold the floor and filibuster about the bill that you want to block. As soon as you give up the floor and there aren't at least 41 other members on the Senate floor, the Majority Leader could then move to pass the bill and just need 50 votes, plus the Vice President, to pass the legislation. 

This would be the filibuster rule regardless of whose in the majority and whose in the minority and whoever the Majority Leader and Minority Leader are. 

Manifest Media Networks: Malcolm X- Interview at UC Berkeley: Oct. 11th, 1963

Source:Manifest Media Networks- Minister Malcolm X, at California Berkeley, in 1963.

Source:The Daily Press

"Malcolm X - interview at UC Berkeley. Check out more at:Black University"

I saw this interview of Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X on CSPAN this year and decided to write about it. He was being interviewed by a California Berkeley professor there in 1963. Berkeley one of the few major universities back in the early 1960s where radical were seemed mainstream, including ethno and racial Nationalists.

Source:C-SPAN- Minister Malcolm X, being interviewed at Berkeley in 1963. 

Part of Malcolm X's message was about the right to self-defense. Which is in the U.S. Constitution, that Americans have. Which means that if you are under attacked, you have the constitutional right to defend yourself to your best ability to prevent your attacker from hurting, or destroying you. Which is a perfectly legitimate thing to believe in. The problem with this philosophy is that it was sort of short-term and a good thing for African-Americans is that more of them didn't take this message to heart and I say that for this reason.

Martin L. King, was a pacifist all around. At least when it came to civil rights and part of that was because Dr. King thought long-term. He was a visionary in the civil rights struggle and understood the power of the media and that African-Americans were undermanned in this struggle as far as their own population. And that they needed the support of non-African-Americans to advance this cause. And that if they were seen as dangerous or violent in this struggle, it would be harder for them to gain additional support.

I believe that part of Malcolm X's message rose from frustration as far as how Africans were treated in America. And that African-Americans had took it too long and that it was time to rise up and fight back. He was right that it was time to rise up and to fight back. Which is what Dr. King believed in as well. But they just had different approaches in how to fight back, Dr. King's approach was more about using the power of media and message. Malcolm had that as well, but it also came with the right to physical self-defense. 

NFL Network: John Riggins: A Football Life

Source:NFL Network- the Washington Diesel.

Source:The Daily Press 

"John 'The Diesel' Riggins was fearless on the field and a fun-loving showman off it. He knew the power of his talents and achieved the ultimate prize with a Lombardi Trophy and Super Bowl MVP title.

'John Riggins: A Football Life' tells the untold story of a small-town Kansas farm kid’s rise from the unknown to being Super Bowl champion to Hall of Famer to actor following his retirement.

John Riggins was truly one of a kind. Known by Redskins fans simply as “Riggo” or “The Diesel,” the man was pure magic on the field." 

From NFL Fanzone

I guess I'm very lucky as a Redskins fan, because my first year as a Redskin fan and I'm not even seven years old, yet a couple months away from that, was in 1982 the year the Washington Redskins win their first Super Bowl. 

I still remember John Riggins touchdown run like I saw it yesterday. Him breaking through that hole, that was designed on purpose to have one free Miami Dolphin defender, who was a safety a guy named Don MacNeil, who may have weighed 200 pounds back then. It was designed this way because Redskins OL coach Joe Bugel tolled JR: "Look, there's going to be one free Dolphin defender who'll have a clean shot at you, but there isn't a DB in football that can tackle you by themselves." 

JR was called the Diesel for a reason, because thats the type of power he had. I think a better comparison would be a horse. Big, tall and strong, who could run like a horse. He would run through you or he could run by you. You try to tackle him, you have a better shot at hurting yourself.

When you think of John Riggins athletically, just don't think of the Super Bowl champion or the Super Bowl MVP or the Hall of Famer or even all of the records he held at least one point. Think of the athlete, think of the 18 year old who at the time was already 6'2  220 pounds, who was the Kansas state track champion in high school. Think of a fullback with tailback speed, who could out run WR's and DB's. And also think of JR from the perspective of a defender: "Even if I do catch this guy, if he's not at full speed, how am I supposed to bring him down. Maybe I should practice by trying to tackle a horse." 

A couple examples of JR's greatness, a regular season game against the Dallas Cowboys in December 1979. The winner of the game wins the NFC East and goes to the playoffs. It was the third or fourth quarter, QB Joe Theisman calls a trap play or a run up the middle. The problem is that JR out ran his OL and turns the play into a sweep and bounces outside and takes the play for a sixty yard touchdown run. No Cowboy in sight trying to catch him until the end when a little Cowboy DB makes light stab at him.

Jim Brown is the best RB of all-time, the power back of all time as well, but JR is right behind JB as the best power back of all-time. And if you are number two to JB in anything when it comes to football, you are a Hall of Famer. The only thing was that JR was under utilized for probably half of his career. The New York Jets were awful in the early and mid 1970s and the Redskins tried to make JR a FB in his first two seasons in Washington. So my question would be had JR been a full-time TB for his entire career, how great would he have been.

Leathered Life: Chrissie- In Leather Jeans

Source:Leathered Life- model Chrissie.

Source:The Daily Press

“Leathered Life Chrissie in Leather Pants” 

From Leathered Life 

“Chrissie… great leather girl.” 

Source:Leathered Life- model Chrissie

From Leathered Life

"Leathered Life Oldies: Chrissie in tight leather pants." Originally from Leathered Life. The photo was from a Leathered Life video, which has since been blocked or deleted on YouTube.

Source:Leathered Life- Chrissie, for Leathered Life. 

Great outfit, but the girl is a little too petite for me. Imagine a women 5'6-5'7 or taller or maybe only 5'4, which would make her average height, but with great legs. Strong thighs, tight round butt and everything else, wearing this outfit. Because that is what leather jeans which are basically skinny jeans, but made from leather instead of denim, are made of.

Skinny denim jeans, are common with beautiful sexy women especially if they're tall. Because it's a great way for women to show off their legs and show off their butt. "Check me out in my tight jeans, because I have a great body." Which I believe is what sexy women are saying when they wear those pants. Especially with boots and a tucked in blouse or short top.

They can also bring too much attention for women when they're in a more formal setting, but that's a different discussion. Leather jeans are also a great way for sexy women to show off their bodies. To bring positive attention to them, as well as negative.The woman in this video, great outfit, but a little small at least for me.