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

CBS Sports: FBS 1977- Notre Dame Fighting Irish @ Clemson Tigers

Source:Sop Ibaga- with this 1977 Irish-Tigers game.

Source:The Daily Press

“Game played November 12, 1977. Notre Dame won the national championship that year. Thanks to MyBloodRunnethOrange for this video. The 1979 game: .

In a classic showdown in 1977 between two top 15 teams, Notre Dame’s Joe Montana leads the Fighting Irish back from a 10-point 4th quarter deficit against .

The Catch Game, played November 19, 1977. Thanks to MyBloodRunnethOrange for the video copy. The Catch at 2:14:56.” 

From Sop Ibaga

A classic matchup between two great football programs. The Fighting Irish have been one of the premier college football programs in the entire history of NCAA football. The Tigers were just starting emerge as a national, college football, power, in the late 1970s.

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

Source:Foreign Affairs Magazine with a look at American education.

Source:FRS FreeState

“In his landmark 1973 book, The Coming of Post-industrial Society, the sociologist Daniel Bell heralded the United States’ transition from a labor-intensive economy that produced goods to a knowledge-based one geared toward providing services. No longer could success be achieved through manual, assembly-line work; it would require advanced skills and creativity. At least since then, American politicians and pundits have regularly stressed that education holds the key to the country’s future. Everyone seems to agree that good schools are prerequisites for broad economic prosperity, individual social mobility, and a healthy civil society in which informed voters engage in the public issues." 

From Foreign Affairs 

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.

We need to assist low-income schools so they can 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.

This is what education reform looks like from me. And the liberal way to reform education and job training in this country.

NFL Films: The 1979 Los Angeles Rams: ‘A Tale of Two Seasons’

Source:NFL Films- Los Angeles Rams head coach Ray Malavasi.

Source:The Daily Press 

“It was the Rams’ weakest divisional winner (an aging 1979 team that only achieved a 9–7 record) that achieved the team’s greatest success in that period. Led by third-year quarterback Vince Ferragamo, the Rams shocked the heavily favored and two-time defending NFC champion Dallas Cowboys 21–19 in the divisional playoffs, then shut out the upstart Tampa Bay Buccaneers 9–0 in the conference championship game to win the NFC and reach their first Super Bowl. Along with Ferragamo, key players for the Rams were halfback Wendell Tyler, offensive lineman Jackie Slater, and Pro Bowl defenders Jack Youngblood and Jack “Hacksaw” Reynolds.

The Rams’ opponent in their first Super Bowl was the defending champion Pittsburgh Steelers. The game was a virtual home game for the Rams as it was played in Pasadena at the Rose Bowl. Although some oddsmakers set the Rams as a 10½-point underdog, the Rams played Pittsburgh very tough, leading at halftime 13–10 and at the end of the third quarter 19–17. In the end, however, the Steelers asserted themselves, scoring two touchdowns in the fourth quarter and shutting down the Rams offense to win their fourth Super Bowl, 31–19.” 

From Wikipedia 

“This video is a telecast, broadcast, and production of NFL Films. I claim no ownership of this material, and do not profit from it in anyway. This video is intended for historical and educational viewing purposes.” 

From Grey Beard 

“NFL Films: 79 Rams” 

Source:NFL Films- the Los Angeles Rams playing their divisional rival Atlanta Falcons, in 1979.

From Lafayette Catfey 

This photo is also from the 1980 NFL Films about the 1979 Los Angeles Rams called: A Tale of Two Seasons. But the video that this photo is from is not currently available online right now. 

Source:NFL Films- hopefully not the best looking Los Angeles Rams cheerleader.

NFL Films likes to dramatize (if not overdramatize their films) and when their doing a team’s season highlights and year and review, they tend to make their shots look more important than they actually are, like the team is going into battle or something, instead of playing a football game.

Source:NFL Films documentary about the 1979 Los Angeles Rams.

A Tale of Two Seasons is the perfect way to describe the 1979 Los Angeles Rams because they were essentially a 500 team or worst in the first half of 1979. The traditionally lowly and last place New Orleans Saints were poised to not only record their first winning season in 1979, make their first playoff appearance and win their first divisional title, in 1979.

The Saints had a pretty solid team and with a better coaching staff and avoiding key injuries, maybe the Saints make the NFC Playoffs in 79. But all of these things happening weren’t because they were real good, but the Rams weren’t in the first half of 79. Because they were real beat up in 1979 with all sorts of key injuries in the backfield, offensive line, receivers, and on defense as well.

The second half of the 79 Rams season were the real Los Angeles Rams that year. Because they got their players back and found their starting quarterback in Vince Feragamo. Who not only got healthy, but took over the starting QB position. They figured out who they were offensively with Feragamo: a running, ball control team, with both short, middle and vertical threats in the passing game.

With the Rams becoming balanced on offense, it meant defenses including the great Pittsburg Steelers in Super Bowl 14, had to adjust, because the Rams could run the ball with either Wendell Tyler or Cullen Bryant, but could also beat you deep with Vince Feragamo in the passing game. And had a defense that only the great Steel Curtain Steelers were better than in 79.

The 79 Rams were a 12-4 or 13-3 team on paper that were even better than the Dallas Cowboys in the NFC. But with all of their injuries, we didn’t see the great Rams team until the second half of 79 and in the playoffs.

The Intelligent Channel: Michael Lind- 'The Global Roots of The 2008 Economic Crash'

Source:The Intelligent Channel- economist Michael Lind talking about the social contract.

"Michael Lind, Policy Director of the New America Foundation's Economic Growth Program and author of Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States (2012), on recent U.S. trade and foreign economic policy... 

From The Intelligent Channel

Reading this report from the New America Foundation goes to highlight the two competing ideological factions in the Democratic Party today. And how we view what the role of government especially the Federal Government should play in the economy. 

The so-called Progressive or as I tend to call them the Social Democratic faction, people like U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, the only self-identified Socialist in Congress. And the New Democratic or real Progressive faction of the party that I come from with people like Barack Obama, John Kerry and Bill Clinton, and many others.

Today’s so-called Progressives not only want to protect current social programs in the country, but to expand them and create new ones. And tax more and basically view the Federal Government as underfunded and too decentralized to take care of the entire country. And would like to create new programs and take more power way from the private sector to give to government to take care of us. Like nationalizing the retirement system, to use as an example as we see in this report.

Today’s so-called Progressives would go much further than Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson perhaps ever even imagined. And would like to see a big centralized government that’s common in let’s say Europe especially in Scandinavia. That would be there to protect us and take care of everyone to prevent us from making mistakes with our own lives especially financially. 

The social democratic theory is that once power is given to the states and individuals and things become decentralized, there’s less security in the system. And they are right about that, but you can have so much security to the point that individualism and creativity get’s stifled.

Social Democrats would like us to be dependent on the same source in this case the Federal Government to take care of us for us. And I do not want to see all the power in the hands of a central government or any government. Or all the power in the hands of organizations corporate or otherwise. But most if not all the power in the hands of an educated workforce and individuals. To be able to control and manage their own lives for themselves after getting the tools to be able to do that for themselves.

In this report from the New America Foundation, you see proposals to nationalize the retirement system and make Social Security the lone provider of pensions in this country. A proposal to nationalize the Unemployment Insurance system, to give the Federal Government complete control over it. Right now the states play a role helping their own unemployed workers and help them get back to work. A proposal to nationalize the Medicaid system so the Federal Government has complete control over the health insurance program for the poor.

We are a huge country with fifty states, we do not need a top-down approach when it comes to health insurance. And there are developed countries that are much smaller than us like Germany, that have a decentralized health insurance system including health insurance for their poor as well. And have universal health insurance for their entire country. 

And today’s so-called Progressives (Social Democrats, really) would also like to go back to the old Welfare system pre-Welfare to Work of 1996. Where people on Welfare Insurance weren’t expected to go back to work.

Middle class Americans are not under-taxed especially if they are struggling right now. And if anything thanks to the expiring payroll tax cut they are probably overtaxed right now. We do not have an underfunded government with too little authority over our lives. We have underfunded workers with too little authority over their own lives. 

And I separate the social contract from the safety net and to have real economic security in this country. Not that it would ever be perfectly secure, no system could provide that, all developed countries have a certain level of low-income and struggling middle-class workers. But to have a real social contract that provides as much economic security as possible.

We need a social contract that empowers more Americans to be able to take care of themselves. And that get’s to things like a modern infrastructure system and actually rebuild this country. So we can all get around and move products around better, efficiently and affordably. And real universal access to quality education in America that’s life-long. That would also be there for the unemployed and low-income workers so they can get themselves better jobs.

The difference between a social contract and a safety-net, the safety net is a foundation that empowers Americans to be able to do for themselves what they need to take care of themselves. And live in freedom in America. 

The safety net is a social-insurance system that people collect from when they need it and have nowhere else to go. So they can take care of themselves in the short run as they are working themselves to becoming independent.

There are Americans who for the first time in their lives became economically free, because of assistance that they received from the safety net. And what New Democrats (or Progressives) want to do is build a real social contract in America. So we can all live in freedom. And what today’s so-called Progressives are really talking about is creating a centralized welfare state run by the Federal Government. That would be there to take care of everyone. And this is main difference between the two factions in the Democratic Party on economic policy and where we want to take the country.

The Economist: Americas View- ‘Affirmative Action in Brazil: Slavery’s Legacy’

Source:The Economist- looks like freedom in Brazil.

Source:FRS FreeState

“TO SUM up recent research predicting a mixed-race future for humanity, biologist Stephen Stearns of Yale University turns to an already intermingled nation. In a few centuries, he says, we will all “look like Brazilians”. Brazil shares with the United States a population built from European immigrants, their African slaves and the remnants of the Amerindian population they displaced. But with many more free blacks during the era of slavery, no “Jim Crow” laws or segregation after it ended in 1888 and no taboo on interracial romance, colour in Brazil became not a binary variable but a spectrum…

From The Economist 

As a Liberal, I take Dr. Martin L. King’s I have a dream speech that one day his children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin, seriously. But I apply it to all Americans not saying that Dr. King didn’t but.

Dr. King all the time spoke about and in favor of the U.S. Constitution and how all of those rights applied to all Americans equally. Not just European-Americans, and not just Anglo-Saxons, or Anglo-Saxon males, but every American, including African-Americans. He even spoke favorably of our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) and vision they created for America where every man (meaning every American) would have the same individual and constitutional rights as everyone else.

Dr. King didn’t speak of an America where some Americans would have better or more rights and be treated better or worst then other Americans, simply because of their race, color, or gender. The whole point of the civil rights movement in the first place was the African-Americans weren’t getting the same treatment and equality under law and in society, simply because of their race and color.

There seems to be this attitude on the Left (to be generous) that racism and bigotry shouldn’t be tolerated when it’s applied to certain groups of people. But that it’s okay when it’s applied to others because minorities have suffered in this country because of their race and ethnicity. As well as Caucasian women and that Caucasians as a whole have benefited. But that when racism is applied to majorities, even majority women, it’s okay because it benefits people who’ve been left behind and it’s a small price to pay.

My attitude as a Liberal who wants to live in a colorblind as well as racial blind and ethnic blind society is that we only get there if we create that for ourselves and practice these things and individuals are treated as individuals and not members of groups. That if you want to eliminate racism and other forms of bigotry in this country, the first step is to stop practicing it no matter who it’s supposed to benefit or deny.

If we are going to have an equal protection clause and civil-rights in this country which we do, then they should apply to everyone and that no one should be denied to benefit simply because of their race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality. And no one should benefit from those things even it is only one consideration.

What we need in America instead of affirmative action, is to have strong civil-rights and anti-discrimination enforcement in this country. So people who practice bigotry in this country would pay a steep price for it and it would be doing themselves a financial as well as professional disservice by practicing bigotry and could even cost them their jobs of business and so-forth.

We also need a real public education system in this country so all Americans have access to a quality education who attend public schools and all have the opportunity to get themselves the skills that they need to be successful in life. To the point that schools and employers would be doing themselves a disservice by denying people access to these things because of their race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality.

The cure for racism in America is not more racism but to eliminate racism and bigotry outright (to paraphrase Black Panther leader Fred Hampton) so it’s no longer practiced. And you do that by cracking down on bigots who practice it and by giving everyone the opportunity to be successful in life so bigotry wouldn’t be a good idea to practice because of the legal and financial consequences that would come from it. But also because of the access to quality talent that schools and employers would lose access to. You don’t defeat racism with different racism, but with civil rights enforcement, education, and equality of opportunity.

Focus On The Family: Dr. James Dobson- Ted Bundy’s Last Interview (1989)

Source:Focus On The Family- convicted serial murderer & rapist Theodore R. Bundy, being interviewed by Dr. James Dobson, in January, in 1989. This was just days, if not hours before Ted Bundy was executed at the Florida State Prison in Railford. 

Source:The Daily Press

“I have found this video on the website “Veoh”, yet I was unable to find it on YouTube, so I have decided to download it from Veoh and upload it here, for a wider audience.

This video includes the full and uncut final interview of serial killer Theodore “Ted” Robert Bundy, made on 23rd January 1989, with Dr. James Dobson, right inside the Florida State Prison, situated in the city of Raiford, less than a day before his execution on the electric chair, which happened in the morning on 7:15 AM on the following day, with Ted Bundy being declared dead just one minute later, on 7:16 AM.

This video also includes an interview with Dr. James Dobson, at the beginning of the video and also at the end of the video, while the interview with Ted Bundy is to be found between these two sections. Again, I have searched a lot for the full interview with Ted Bundy on YouTube, yet I was unable to find any video on here, that includes the full, uncut interview and which also does not include any subtitles or any kind of audio delay. The video quality is the same video quality from the original video found on Veoh. I did also not cut or edit anything on it. The video is 55 minutes and 40 seconds long, yet after 55 minutes and 9 seconds, the last 31 seconds of the video only include an old-fashioned test screen, so there will be nothing more to see.” 

From Q'nquira  

When Dr. James Dobson who was literally one of the leaders of the Christian-Right in America with his social group Focus On The Family, when he interviewed Ted Bundy just before Bundy was executed at Florida State Prison in 1989, Bundy was tying to save his life at this point and explain why he committed all of those murders and rapes and perhaps hoped he could get his sentenced commuted to life in prison.

Source:Focus On The Family- Focus On The Family, Dr. James Dobson, interviewing serial murderer Ted Bundy, days before he was executed in 1989. 

Some background is needed for this interview: Dr. James Dobson is one of the leaders of the religious-right or the so-called Moral Majority in America, that looks down on alcohol, tobacco, pornography, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, to be more specific. And Ted Bundy is one of the most successful serial murderers we’ve ever seen in the United States. Ted Bundy is trying to simply save his life. And Dr. Dobson wants to show Americans the dangers of pornography.

And late in his life I guess after Ted Bundy finally admitted that he was guilty of the murders he was convicted of he started explaining why they happened and how they came about. And as he says in the interview he’s not blaming alcohol and pornography for what he did. And takes responsibility for these murders at least in this interview. But saying that he was under the influence of alcohol and pornography during these crimes. Which gave Dr. Dobson an opportunity to push his message of why alcohol and pornography are bad for society.

This was about Ted Bundy trying to save his life and show people who he’s not as evil as he was portrayed because of all the horrible murders and rapes that he committed. That was Bundy’s motivation here and why he also admitted to other murders that he wasn’t convicted of. Because he wanted a stay of execution and not be executed. Even if that meant living the rest of his life in prison.

Dr. Dobson at the very least was smart enough to see that. But I believe used this interview anyway to try to showcase what he sees as the dangers of pornography in America.