ABC News: Weekend Report (October, 1979)

Source:ABC News- covering Pope John Paul's trip to Washington, in 1979.

Source:The Daily Press

“Opening minutes of the October 7 1979 edition of ABC News’ Weekend Report, anchored by Barry Serafin and devoted to Pope John Paul II’s visit to the United States.”

From Rob Atsea

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

Pope John Paul, was a strong voice against authoritarianism, at least from the Far-Left like with communism. But like others with the Christian-Right had authoritarian views when it came to homosexuality, women’s place in the world and reproductive rights.

I don’t want to say I see Pope Paul as a mix bag, because by in-large I believe he was a great man. But he did has some at least very traditional religious cultural views when it came to individualism and again women’s place in the world. And not believing women should take leadership roles in the Catholic Church.

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

ABC News: Good Morning America: U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann Won’t Run For Re-Election

Source:ABC News- U.S. Representative Michelle Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) announcing that she's not running for reelection to the U.S. House, so she can go back home and get the help that she deserves. Actually, I don't know what she's saying here.

Source:FRS FreeState

“One of the founding members of the Tea Party Caucus announces she will retire from congress. For more on this story, click here:ABC News." 

From ABC News 

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

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

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

Michele who says big government is a threat to our freedom, but then proposes a constitutional amendment that would outlaw pornography. And give Uncle Sam the ability to control what Americans can do in their homes and personal lives. So there will be one less contradictory member of Congress and one less hypocrite. These are all good things and I’m not complaining.

But as a blogger who sometimes writes satire, this is bad news and its bad news for comedians because a lot of our material comes from statements that Michele Bachmann makes. So hopefully she’ll find a way to stay in the public eye. Perhaps as a verbal punching bag.

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

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

Real Time With Bill Maher: Secularism & Religion

Source:Fox News- Bill O'Reilly vs Bill Maher.

Source:FRS FreeState

“All copyrights belong to Fox New. No copyright infringement intended” 

From Derek Stran 

“Air Date: September 20th, 2001

Panelists: Laura Innes, Dennis Prager & Peter Greenburg”

Source:No Cow Eyes- Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher.

From No Cow Eyes 

There are advantages and disadvantages of living in a free society like America, or living in an authoritarian state like Russia or China. The question and debate is where would most people be better off: living in a country where people have the right to be themselves and live their own lives, knowing that there going to people who hate other people simply because who they are, their race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc, who kill other people simply because of their hate.

But I think most Americans (and I’m one of them) would rather live here and have that freedom, knowing that someone who has the same freedom that they do, might decide to murder a lot of people simply because they hate them.

My point is terrorism is everywhere and if anything the most free societies in the world are more prone to terrorism and other violence, simply because they don’t have the same amount as security, as you would see in a police state, where the country is so secure, that the national government is even scared of it’s own people. So I think the question is would rather be completely secure, except perhaps from your own government, or be fairly secure but have the freedom to live your own lives.

Marko Polo: Buddy Ryan’s Gang Green Defense

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

Source:The Daily Press 

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

From NFL Network

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:Katerina Savenkova- in Levi's Jeans.

Source:The Daily Press

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

Directed by Chris Allen Williams

Produced by SPANG TV

Talent by Wilhelmina Modelogic” 

From Katerina Savenkova 

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

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

Slate Magazine: David Weigel: ‘Filibuster Reform Kicks Open the Coffin and Returns From the Dead’

Source:Slate Magazine- Richard Cordray is President Barack Obama's nominee to head the Consumer Financial Bureau.

Source:FRS FreeState

“So far, it seems like only Greg Sargent and HuffPost are noticing: Democrats are talking about filibuster reform again. The latest progress report comes in this story from Ryan Grim and Jennifer Bendery, who find Democratic senators newly frustrated by their failure to pass bills or confirm nominees, especially CFPB head Richard Cordray.

Reid indicated Tuesday that he would bring Cordray’s nomination to a vote in July, and a Senate Democratic aide said that vote will come at a time when Reid is ready to launch into a broader fight over all of Obama’s stalled nominees. The “plan is to wait until immigration is complete before engaging in total all-out nom[ination] fight,” said the aide.

What kind of fight are we talking about? It starts with Democrats claiming to hold 51 votes to end the filibuster on executive branch nominees, because Republicans are being unreasonable. Republicans have tried to blunt the attack by proving that, hey, they’re letting people through and you’re not noticing.

“This President is being treated exceptionally fairly,” said Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, on the floor this week. “The President has recently submitted a few new nominations. I know I have been reminding him that we can’t do anything about vacancies without him first sending up nominees. But again, even with the recent nominations, 58 of 82 nominations still have no nominee.”

Basically, Republicans need to lower the temperature and portray Democrats as unreasonable liars. “More executive branch appointments, confirmations, by and large – it’s been handled in a very bipartisan way,” said Mitch McConnell yesterday in his brief weekly on-camera press conference. This is one reason you saw so much harrumphing when Sen. Ted Cruz bragged to Texas conservatives that “squishes” sold him out on his filibuster of the motion to proceed to debate on guns. That fed into the public impression that Republicans were obstructionists – and, well, they are, for lots of good reasons, but it’s tough to sell when something popular is being obstructed.

So Republicans hype the nominees they let through, ask why Obama isn’t sending more nominees, and (as Daniel Foster pointed out in National Review) nominating conservatives for mandatory seats on bipartisan panels, whenever possible. They also express shock that Democrats would change the rules, or think about it.

“The majority leader said earlier this year that he would not change the rules in any extraordinary way, the nuclear option, in this Congress,” said McConnell on Tuesday. “I take him at his word. The assumption is that will not be done.”

From Slate Magazine 

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) clearly explains how the republican minority was abusing senate rules at historic levels, leaving the democrats no choice but to change those rules and lower the number of votes needed from 60 to 51 to overcome obstructionist filibusters of presidential nominees.” 

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

From TDC 

To be completely fair and to put everything out there and I do agree with probably everything that Majority Leader Harry Reid said in his speech, but Senate Democrats led first by Tom Daschle in 2003-04 and later Harry Reid when he was Senate Minority Leader from 2005-06, did the exact same thing that Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell are doing now, that Republicans are in the minority. They’re blocking nominees simply because they don’t like them, or are worried that Democrats will get a partisan advantage in the Federal court system. Which is exactly what Senate Democrats first led by Tom Daschle and later Harry Reid, did to then President George W. Bush, when Democrats were in the minority in the mid 2000s.

I think the only solution here is really clear and I also agree with Leader Reid on this as well. There should be no more filibusters on any executive or judicial nominee, that clears the committee with a majority vote. And in exchange, the minority party led by the Minority Leader can offer amendments to all the nominees that they disapprove of. Amendments like before this nominee is approve, the Senate needs answers to these questions or have these documents turned over first. But those amendments would just need majority approval as well. But at the end of the day, if the President and the Senate has a majority vote for the nominees, they should be approved.

ABC News: ABC Evening News, January 11, 1978

Source:ABC News anchor Frank Reynolds.

"ABC Evening News, January 11, 1978 with Harry Reasoner, Bawa, Frank Reynolds, Howard K Smith" 

From Color Tiniz

The economy was probably the biggest story of 1978, because that’s went it went down hill and didn’t come back until late 1983. In the late 1970s, America had high unemployment, high interest rates, high inflation, and energy shortage and a recession in 1979-80, and all these things started in 1978. 

It was called the Great Deflation that started with the 1973 oil embargo that led to energy shortages. America was getting out of Vietnam and jobs were no longer being created from that war. Economic growth slowing down, unemployment going up. As well as the Federal budget deficit, interest rates and inflation. Even if the economy looked solid in January, of 78 with fairly low unemployment that was about to change very quickly by the spring that year.

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

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

1978, the start of the second year of the Carter Administration that had an economy that was about to go south. Rising interest rates, inflation, rising energy costs and an energy shortage, but they did manage to get some important legislation through Congress. An energy bill and they got the airline industry deregulated which created a lot more competition there. They kept us out of war, they kept the deficit down even dealing with a left-wing leading  Democratic Congress, at least in the House, that wanted all sorts of new spending and new taxes to finance their new programs. So President Carter and his administration, actually managed to get a lot done in their four years.