CBS: 'CSI: Miami - Preview: Rest In Pieces:' Raquel Welch Guess Stars

Source: The Daily Review- Hollywood Goddess Raquel Welch & David Caruso-

Source:The Daily Press 

"When the 'Miami Taunter' kills again, Horatio comes face-to-face with the matriarch of the suspected killer's family, who may or may not help his investigation, on CSI: MIAMI, Sunday, March 11 (10:00-11:00 PM, ET/PT) on CBS! Watch full episodes of your favorite show at:CBS." 

Source:CBS- Hollywood Goddess Eva LaRue, on CBS's CSI Miami.

From CBS

Raquel Welch was in her early 70s at this point and I guarantee you she was the best looking woman on the show, at least that night. And CSI Miami has Eva LaRue, who is also gorgeous and baby-face and well-built. And Emily Proctor, very attractive with a nice body, whose as cute as a little girl and at times at least sounds like one. 

But what makes Raquel a goddess for all-time, is that she doesn’t seem to age, at least in public. She’s always been hot and has always been baby-face adorable. It’s just that the years she’s lived have gone up every year. I haven’t actually seen this show, so I couldn’t tell you how Raquel did on it. 

But I can tell you how she looked and the star power she still has on it, or CBS doesn’t promote the show the way it did. An actress at this point when this episode came out in her early 70s, who still commands that much attention and who is still a goddess physically, looking better than beautiful women young enough to be her daughter and perhaps even her grand-daughter, was probably unheard of twenty-years ago. But Raquel makes it seem so natural. 

The Daily Beast: John Avlon, Meghan McCain & Mike Moynahan- 'Real Housewives of the CIA'

Source:The Daily Beast- John Avlon, Meghan McCain, and Mike Moynihan.

Source:The Daily Journal 

“As new details emerge about Gen. David Petraeus’ affair with Paula Broadwell, Meghan McCain, Michael Moynihan, and John Avlon debate the scandal’s potential repercussions, on today’s NewsBeast.”

From The Daily Beast

Sounds like a real reality TV show in the works, perhaps Meghan McCain will produce it. You heard that here first. As far as David Petraeus and his sex scandal, I guess this is the clincher that American politics and government is never boring and why we have a political junky industry. And for so-called Progressives today ( I'm being too nice with the word Progressives ) I guess who believe that America should be more like France, well we are when it comes to our public officials and how they live their personal lives.

 Political junky, is no longer just a hobby for unemployed politicians who can't seem to win another public office and keep losing. And spend all of their free time, which is really all of their time, especially if they have a Congressional pension, watching C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC and FNC. But a way for writers and pundits to make their living. To tell Americans how much they don't know about American politics and government.

As far as Benghazi, if it wasn't for that story, what would House Republicans do? At least some of them like Speaker John Boehner, are smart enough to know they can't repeal ObamaCare in this Congress with a Democratic Senate and Democratic President, that the law is named after. Most of them probably never have any attention of leaving Congress, at least the House of Representatives. So they don't want to work with Senate Democrats to pass anything constructive that President Obama might actually sign. And risk being primaried and having to go home and work for a living. Like washing cars, or hosting radio talk shows, teaching gym in high school, or whatever they were doing in 2009 before they decided to run for the House. So all they have left in their one page playbook that a five-year could read is a bogus (to be too nice) Benghazi investigation. 

CBS: The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson- Raquel Welch: in 2010

Source:CBS- Hollywood Goddess Raquel Welch and Craig Ferguson, in 2010.

Source:The Daily Press 

“Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson 4/7/2010

Guests: Raquel Welch, Anna Torv, Brian McFadden.” 

From CBS

Raquel Welch, really is a true goddess. A woman now in her early seventies is still this hot, cute and sexy. Who is also a hell of an actress and entertainer in general, who is not just about her hot sexy looks. But had made a great career with her looks, but ability to act and entertain as well. She’s someone who was born with goddess looks and features, which probably got her in the door in Hollywood and got her a lot of work early on.

But I sort of her look at her like I look at a great talented athlete who gets noticed real quickly, but then takes full-advantage of that and make a great career for them self. Raquel, is a very good actress whose used her physical talents, let’s say to get herself parts and work, because directors want to work with her and use her. Because they know she’ll sell their movies and projects. But then does a great job in the roles that she gets. Because guys simply want to see her, but then they also can see that she can act, sing and make people laugh as well.

Raquel Welch, has truly made a great life and career for herself as a Hollywood goddess. Showing women of all sorts of backgrounds that if they work hard and take care of themselves and are responsible, they too can make a great career and life for themselves. Perhaps not age as gracefully as Raquel, but age well and not have to look like a senior citizen even if they already are one in years. The old cliche, “age is only a number”, could have been written for Raquel.

She’s not someone who was discovered in her twenties, but then burned out in her thirties, or dead in her thirties. She’s someone if anything is doing better now in her seventies than she did in her thirties. In some ways perhaps even sexier with great curves now. A woman at her age whose still a sexy baby, a hot baby-faced adorable women, in her seventies. Who can probably make women young enough to be her granddaughter jealous.

Only a goddess, or some made up Hollywood figure could still have that at this point in their life. But Raquel is the real thing who fully taken advantage of all of her abilities. 

Liberty Pen: 'PC Is Never Having To Say You're Sorry'

Source:Liberty Pen- welcome to America.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Americans do not have a right to not be offended. They do have a right to free speech. Jackie Mason. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen 

"Love Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry"

Source:Real Life Journal- I believe that's Ali MacGraw from Love Story.

From Paper Rosesx

Political correctness, at its best (not exactly a high point) is a feeling in the country that bigotry should be wrong and looked down upon. Not outlawed, but considered unacceptable to the majority of the country. That I and I believe a consensus of Americans believe in. 

Political correctness, at its worse, (which is as high as Mount Everest) is this feeling that we should not only say things that may offend people that so-called Progressives (Communists, really) support, but that we shouldn't be allowed to say that and there should be legal or civil sanctions that should come down upon people who offend people that so-called Progressives support.

So-called PC Warriors also believe that if you say offensive things about people that so-called Progressives oppose (like right-wingers) well, thats just free speech. And what's the problem, because all they are saying is the truth. So it's not just political correctness that can be a problem, but a double standard that can come with political correctness that can also be a problem as well.

To put it bluntly: freedom of speech protects the assholes as much as the enlightened. Especially when the enlightened says things about people that so-called Progressives (and I'm being nice with the word Progressives) believe deserve special protection and are part of some vulnerable class of people that government should give special treatment to. There's nothing bigoted about the truth and I would argue nothing offensive either.

The Christian-Right and Muslim-Right have one big nasty thing in common: they tend to see women and homosexuals as second-class citizens. In the women's case, people who are only on Earth to serve their men and raise their kids. In the homosexual case, people who should be in mental institutions, if not jails and in the Islamist case, people who don't even deserve to live. You can still be put to death in some parts of the Middle East simply for being gay.

So when a Liberal or Conservative or Libertarian, says that the Christian-Right and Islamists view women and gays as second-class citizens, who are they offending and where is the bigotry? If you just say that about Christian-Conservatives, you'll be viewed as a hero with the New-Left in America. And as someone with the guts to speak the truth. But if you say the same thing about Islamists, even though all you're doing is speaking the truth, you'll be viewed as a bigot, by the New-Left in America.

The politically correct thing should always be the truth. And if someone is wrong, or ignorant, or even hateful, they'll be held accountable by everyone else. They won't be forced to shut up and government wont' take their platform away from them. But public opinion will sanction them and the asshole will loose supporters and perhaps their job. But they won't be thrown in jail simply for speaking their mind. That is not how a liberal free society works.

Mitt Romney: 'Romney’s Big Day Marred by Etch A Sketch Remark'

Source:CNN- Ann Romney vs Rick Santorum on CNN.

Source:The Daily Journal 

"Mitt Romney picked up a highly prized endorsement Wednesday from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush after a convincing victory the night before in the Illinois primary but then saw a top adviser’s televised comment provide new ammunition to his trailing rivals in the Republican presidential race.

Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s senior campaign adviser, was asked in a CNN interview Wednesday morning whether the former Massachusetts governor had been forced to adopt conservative positions in the rugged race that could hurt his standing with moderates in November’s general election.

“I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes,” Fehrnstrom responded. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again.” 

From CNN 

"For a candidate who has spent months battling the title of "flip-flopper," perhaps the last thing he would want associated with his name is an Etch A Sketch, those do-over drawing boards that let you shake your scribbles away with the flick of a wrist.

Unfortunately Mitt Romney won't be able to shake away this comparison any time soon. When his campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom was asked this morning on CNN how the GOP frontrunner would make the pivot to the general election, Fehrnstrom compared Romney's primary campaign to an Etch A Sketch, a gaffe that spread like wildfire to Romney's rival's stump speeches." 

Source:ABC News- 2012 Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

From ABC News

A President Mitt Romney and I doubt this would ever happen, but if it did it would be better for comedians. Because he's a gaffe and flip-flopping machine, that would provide comedians and bloggers mountains of material to make fun of him. 

Every comedian in America should endorse Mitt Romney for president for their own careers. Because they would make all the material they had against George W. Bush look as original as the New York Yankees winning the World Series, or Lebron James playing in the NBA Finals and losing. Because when it comes to taking political positions for Mitt, it depends on which group he's talking to and which Mitt is speaking to that group. 

Businessman Mitt, religious fundamentalist Mitt, or whoever Mitt is when he's not running for whatever political office he's interested in at the time.

The fact that someone like Mitt Romney who flips backs and forth more often than tennis balls at a tennis match, could win the Republican nomination for president, is like a quarterback winning the starting position for an expansion team: "Since no one else seriously tried out and you haven't done any time in any mental institutions and don't see same-sex marriage as a threat national security, we'll give the job to you. And good luck to you as we're more interested in 2016 anyway. When we might have at least on candidate who can actually win." 

Mitt Romney won the GOP presidential nomination, because he seemed like the only person who was sane to the GOP establishment and would embarrass them the least and not cost them the House of Representatives. Which they can't afford to lose in 2012.

So yeah, a President Mitt Romney (I'm shitting bricks just saying that) would have been great for comedy and blogging interesting. Especially bloggers who right comedy and I'm one of them. But bad for the American people, because for them to have any idea what their President thinks about any issue, they would have to listen and read every single he says. Because his positions could change the next time he opens his mouth about anything depending on who he's talking too. And what the polls in the Republican Party are saying.

President Romney Senior Adviser- "Aw Mr. President, your current position on that issue is not popular."

President Romney- "Okay, I'll change it."

Senior Adviser- "But you just took that position yesterday."

"Romney-  "So what! I'm speaking to Americans. Their memories aren't that long anyway."

That is what a President Romney would be like. Who knows what the President, because he doesn't even know. Great for comedy, but bad for the country.

Sky News: Cesar Millan- 'Dog Whisperer, Rejects Cruelty Claims'

Source:Sky News- Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Dog whisperer Cesar Millan has defended himself against claims that he is cruel to animals.

The allegations were made recently in a TV interview with presenter Alan Titchmarsh after tweeting animal-lover critics said the Mexican-born trainer used violence and even electric shocks to train the dogs.

But, Millan told Sky News, he made physical contact with the dog to distract the dog from the action it was about to take - for instance, stop the dog from going into fighting mode." 

From Sky News

Dogs, are similar to humans in this sense, that they have to get to know you and trust that you aren't there to hurt them, before they will open up to you and trust you. And once you accomplish that and you know how to approach them, they'll love you. 

I have a hard time buying (and not because money is tight) that Cesar Milan abuses dogs or any other pets. Of course he could be an Oscar caliber actor on his show and that his show is nothing but an act. And that while he pretends to be this great animal psychologist on TV, in his free time he beats dogs and cats with a whip for the hell of it, or to take out on his anger at whatever is pissing off at the time. I just don't see that.

He reminds me of the great adolescent phycologist who works with lets say troubled urban high school students who grow up in rough neighborhoods. Where their father is not around and if their mother works at all, she works two low-income jobs just to support her kids and doesn't have the time to look after them during the day. But this great teacher or psychologist who is probably a former Marine, or something comes in and teaches these kids how to behave and get with the program. And how important school is to their future and all of that. 

It's hard to imagine someone like Cesar Millan as a bullshit artist, who talks a great game in public, but in private is just as bad as the assholes that he has turned around made productive people out of.

Cesar Milan, at least to me, seems like that guy you want to have around when your dog doesn't know how to behave, or has no interest in behaving and you've tried everything else that you can think of. And you're just desperate, so you go on national TV and bring your home problems to the public. (Talk about desperation) So you bring in the Dog Whisperer to teach your dog how to behave and become a responsible member of the family. How to respond to their parents and other family members. Respond to commands, how to behave on walks, even how to go to the bathroom and anything else. 

I have a hard time believing that someone like Cesar Millan, who clearly loves dogs and has such great skill at training them, would in private be abusive to them and perhaps even criminal.

Slate: 'Romney Boys Can't Contain Their Obama Debate Anger'

Source:Slate Magazine- Meet the Romney Family.

Source:The Daily Press 

"The exchanges weren't the only things getting heated at Tuesday night's presidential debate. Two of Mitt Romney's sons got a little hot under the collar watching their dad spar with the president.

Asked on a radio how he felt when Obama called his dad a liar, Romney's eldest son Tagg said he wanted to "rush down to the stage and take a swing at him." Tagg also took issue with the president's campaign trying "to do everything they can to turn my dad into someone he's not," which seems like a tall order considering Romney himself has a habit of shifting where he stands. 

The Romney sons' aggression didn't stop there: Tagg's brother, Josh, was seen giving the president a death stare during the debate, and that spawned a mini-meme.  Menacing maybe, but hardly enough for the Secret Service to get involved."

From Slate Magazine

Not the most loving and respectful men of the presidency. The Romney Boys, they seem more like thugs working for their father. They seem to want to do what their father other than in the first presidential debate what their father couldn’t do, which is to beat up President Obama, or at least beat him somewhere. 

I mean Mitt, clearly wins the first debate and is still clearly trailing the President in the Electoral College, despite now being neck-in-neck with the President in the popular vote. Mitt, doesn’t look like a winner right now, but someone whose trying to find any place where he can win. So he’s not the Mike Dukakis of the GOP. Someone who badly loses a presidential election that he should have won.

It’s hard to hear negative facts about your father especially in a political campaign. Especially when those facts are about one’s lack of experience, knowledge, judgement, honesty, and even credibility. The Romney Sons, might know who Dad is, but the problem is their Dad won’t let the rest of the country know. Because he keeps turning into someone else depending on what office he’s running for, what year he’s running and the people he feels he needs to have supporting him. 

Mitt is Moderate Mitt in Massachusetts, he’s Religious Conservative Mitt in 2007 when he’s going for the Christian-Right in Iowa and South Carolina. And now he’s the businessman with results, even though as Governor of Massachusetts, he had a weak jobs record. And laid off a lot of people as a businessman.

Who is Mitt Romney and what do you believe in? Would be my question to him if I ever interviewed him. But I would be carrying a whole notepad of paper, or perhaps my laptop waiting for ten different answers to the same questions. As he’s telling us every different position he has on the same issue. And doing that for each issue. 

Americans are funny this way in that we like our presidential candidates to tell us who they are and what they believe with some consistency before we decide who we’re going to vote for, not after. I guess we’re just stubborn that way and don’t have much faith in coin flipping when it comes to choosing our political leaders. But we’re into finger flipping when it comes to political leaders that we don’t like. As Mitt knows all too well right now.

Slate Magazine: Mitt Romney- 'Binders Full of Women Meme to Take Over The World'

Source:Slate Magazine- does Mitt Romney have binders full of Hillary Clinton?

Source:The Daily Press 

"The most substantive moments of last night's presidential debate may have been President Obama and Mitt Romney's heated exchanges over Libya and energy policy. But the Internet has its own favorite: Romney's pronouncement that he was given "binders full of women" to fill jobs in his cabinet when he was governor of Massachusetts. That came in response to a question about the glass ceiling and gender bias in pay.   

Before the debate even ended, a meme had sprouted on social media. Within minutes, a Tumblr account appeared, with crowd-sourced parody images that included Hillary Clinton, an '80s teen idol, and Beyoncé. By this morning, the Facebook community "Binders Full of Women" had more than 250,000 members.

In a debate full of curious phrasing, why did Romney's binders comment stand out? Slate's Amanda Marcotte wrote that the inelegant phrase resonated because it underlined Romney's "utter unwillingness to address the true causes of inequality." 

From Slate Magazine

Is Mitt Romney capable of getting through an appearance, debate or otherwise, without making a gaffe? Or maybe these so-called gaffes aren’t gaffes and he actually believes in this, let's say garbage and it just slipped out. Does Mitt even at this point where he’s clearly trailing in big Republican states like Florida, Virginia and Ohio (where he needs to win at least two of those states in order to win the presidency) even want to be president? Or is he writing a new book, perhaps political manual on how not to run for president if you want to win. The title of the book actually being: “Mitt Romney’s: How Not to Run For President.” Maybe he’s hoping he can get Congress even with a Democratic Senate in it, to repeal the 19th Amendment that guarantees all American women the right to vote. And with that he wouldn’t have to bother campaigning for female voters.

I imagine when it comes to life in general and in business, Mitt Romney is a tall, handsome, young-looking (for a Baby Boomer) intelligent, good man. But when it comes to politics, he must have slept in when God was handing out political brains. I haven’t seen a national politician this weak when it comes to appealing to average voters since George H.W. Bush in 1992. When he didn’t know the price of milk and his own Vice President miss spells potato. And this is probably because President Bush hadn’t been to a grocery store and bought his own groceries in over twenty-years at that point. 

If I’m a woman (and no I’m not looking for a sex change) am I supposed to feel good about Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women”? Or should I take that as a guy who probably watches too much Cinemax late at night, because he can’t sleep, because from all the coffee he drinks on the campaign trail?

As a presidential candidate, Mitt Romney is a gunslinger who always has his gun pointed at his feet and forgets turn the safety off. I don’t know how the man walks around anymore having shot off so many of his own toes. He barely beats a man who wants to take America back to 1955 in a national time machine where women weren’t supposed to work and perhaps even vote. Where gays were locked in prison cells and mental institutions, as well as closets. That being Rick Santorum of course and is now running against a President who struggles to hit fifty-percent when it comes to his own popularity. With high unemployment and weak economic growth. 

Mitt finds himself trailing in several big Republican states that he has to win, to a President who struggles to get to 50% approval. I mean is Mitt Romney really all the Republican Party has to offer for president? And is this the best they have?

VH1: Cher- If I Could Turn Back Time: Live at VH1 Divas (1999)

Source:VH1- Cher, performing at VH1 Divas in 1999.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Cher - If I Could Turn Back Time 1999 Live Video | Cher video... Originally from VH1, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube. 

The only Cher song that I like and perhaps because of the candor in it. A song about regret and I think it was about her relationship with Sunny Bono, a great classic rock song. 

This performance was part of VH1's Divas series that they did annually in the late 1990s and early 2000s. No idea if they still do that, but Cher whatever you think of her certainly qualifies as a diva. Great voice, great personality, great body, certainly very entertaining. And she's lived a hell of a life and with comes with that comes a lot of regret. 

Things you wish you shouldn't have said and done and perhaps got caught up in the moment and took out your anger on someone. "If I Could Turn Back Time", again great song, but it is sort of like saying: "If only I owned a helicopter, I would be able to avoid rush hour traffic everyday." People aren't tested by what they would have changed if they could go back. You learn from mistakes and then move on. 

We are all tested by how we react and carry ourselves in the moment. The better we do in real-time, the fewer mistakes that we'll make as we move on.

Reason Magazine: Lisa Kennedy- 'The Cast of Atlas Shrugged Part II Talks Film's Impact'

Source:Reason Magazine- talking about Atlas Shrugged the movie.

Source:Real Life Journal

"The book was incredibly informative for me," says actress Samantha Mathis who plays Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged Part II, "in terms of figuring out [Dagny's] backstory and where she came from, and why she believed what she believed, and what her relationships were."

ReasonTV correspondent Kennedy spoke with Mathis and other cast members at the film's Hollywood Premiere on Oct. 5 to find out how they connected with their characters and the themes portrayed in the movie.

Atlas Shrugged Part II, the second of three films based on Ayn Rand's controversial 1957 novel, hits theaters nationwide on Friday, October 12, 2012. (For more information on the film, go to:Atlas Shrugged Movie." 

From Reason Magazine

Atlas Shrugged (written by Ayn Rand) reminds me of someone who I guess knows the world is about to explode and they're going to die anyway and basically says: "What the hell, I have nothing to lose at this point. I can do whatever I want, because I'm going to die anyway. So thats exactly what I'm going to do." The world is literally on fire and I'm writer and I can write anything I want. Because no one is going to read it anyway. And even if someone does read it, no one is going to remember it, because everyone is going to be dead." 

Atlas Shrugged, is a complete and total fantasy with really no base in reality in it. And looks like something that was written by someone who perhaps had months to live, who was a writer and decides to write whatever they want at this point. With no editor to answer to, because no one is going to read it anyway.

Atlas Shrugged, is essentially a fantasy about what can happen when the private sector and a capitalist economy is regulated. It's not about what can happen when a developed, or highly developing country with a strongly growing an educated middle class, where poverty is shrinking, is taken over by Marxist revolutionaries, that decides to outlaw political parties, private property, starts detaining people who oppose them and nationalizes industries. We already know that story because we've seen it before. Lebanon comes to mind and perhaps you could make a case for Cuba as well. That would be a good book and movie and it would sell well if was done right. 

Atlas Shrugged (written by Ayn Rand in 1957) there hasn't been an example of a regulated private enterprise economy that has collapsed just because it is regulated, since that book was written.

Atlas Shrugged, which I'm sure is very clever and well-done and written by Ayn Rand, that shouldn't be a surprise. But as a movie it sounds like bad sci-fi movie from the Sci-Fi Channel. Every developed country in the world operates under some form of rule of law. That government is not there to tell people who to live their own lives and control our movement's, or anything like that. 

There isn't a single developed country in the world that is a Marxist state, or some type of authoritarian state from the Far-Right. But all developed countries do regulate how people interact with each other and regulate the economy. Not to run business's, but to protect customer's and workers. 

Economies can be over regulated and when that happens they struggle. But they all have some type of regulatory state that is there to protect workers and consumers from predators. And Ayn Rand lived in a great developed country like that for a very long time, that being America.

Liberty Pen: Christopher Hitchens- 'In Defense Of Unpopular Speech'

Source:Liberty Pen- British Socialist columnist Christopher Hitchens, actually making a great case for free speech. Not your typical Socialist. (To put it mildly)

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Popular speech does not need Constitutional protection. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

I don't agree with the late great writer Christopher Hitchens all the time. I'm a Liberal, he's more of a Democratic Socialist, a bit left to me on economic policy (to put it mildly) but we do tend to agree on some of these key social issues, like civil liberties, War on Drugs, and yes, free speech. 

But Freedom of Speech is exactly that: the freedom to speak, to go along with our property rights, are the most important freedoms and constitutional rights that we have in America. The freedom to speak is exactly that: the right to speak whether it's popular or not.

Since we are a liberal democracy, we've decided long ago, that we are good enough and intelligent enough as a nation, that we can have good intelligent tolerant thinkers. But that we can also have haters and ignorant people as well, because we are a good and intelligent enough as a people to figure out what's hate and what's not and what should be taken seriously and what shouldn't be. That we don't need big government to make these decisions for us. What we should and be able to listen to and what we shouldn't listen to. 

This is something that Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians figured out a long time ago, but that today's so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) so-called and Christian-Conservatives (but what are they conserving and they Bible are they reading) have never grasped, who believe government needs to be strong enough to be able to protect its people, even at times from themselves.

The Islamic film, that was perceived very negatively a few weeks ago by Muslims and so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) but of course Christian-Nationalists view the film as free speech, because they like and agree with the film (but thats a different story) is a perfect example of what free speech is designed to protect: the right for people to be able to speak their mind, even as small as their minds and intelligence level may be. As long as they are not labeling people, threatening people, or inciting violence. 

What this anti-Muslim movie essentially does, is layout what the creators of this movie feel: "Islam is bad and so-forth, that Muhammad was a bad person and so-forth." But it wasn't calling for Muslims to be killed and beat up and so-forth. It was a negative if not bigoted view of Islam, but not calling for violence on Muslims. And thats the difference between free speech and threatening speech. Something we don't put up with as a nation.

HLN: Showbiz Tonight Countdown- Best Burnett Ever!

Source:HLN- The Carol Burnett Show, on HLN's Showbiz Tonight.

Source:The Daily Journal 

"The cast of the "Carol Burnett Show" including Burnett herself countdown the show's best moments on Showbiz Tonight." 

From HLN

One of the best variety comedy shows of all-time, sort of like a half-hour Saturday Night Live. Speaking of SNL, SNL gets a lot of credit for being such an original variety skit-comedy show that other shows have tried to follow and make their own versions of it. And all of that is true, but Carol Burnett, was essentially the same thing, but came out 6-7 years earlier in the late 1960s, instead of 1975 with SNL and was on CBS instead of NBC. And you could make a case that Carol Burnett herself and her show with his her great cast and writers, inspired shows like Saturday Night Live and later In Living Color, MADD-TV and other skit comedy shows. Because of how good it was, how original it was, the topics it covered. That it wasn't about sending a political, or cultural message, but about making fun of everyday American life.

The Carol Burnett Show, covered and had everything and they weren't about politics at least in the sense they were trying to push some political message. It was simply about entertainment and what was going on in America at the time especially as it related to pop culture. And always looking for the funny side of everything they covered. They mad fun of politicians, movies, TV shows, actors, musicians, weren't worried about political correctness and pleasing everybody. But great comedians who all had similar sense of humors, great chemistry, who liked each other loved working with each other. And in that sense at least it reminds me of Seinfeld and was better than Saturday Night Live, that generally looks at politics from a political slant. Carol Burnett, was simply about making people laugh and doing it in a classy way and having a great time at it. 

AlterNet: Lynn Stuart Parramore: 'Are You Ready For a Post Masculine World?'

Source:The Daily Beast- from Hanna Rosin's book.

Source:The Daily Journal 

"The sun began to set on traditional masculinity over 500 years ago – just around the time musketeers arrived on the battlefields of Europe. At first, the feudal knights scoffed. How unnatural, and worse, how unmanly to go around pointing ungainly, smoke-belching sticks at your enemies!

But soon enough, technology won out, and it was the knights who faded into obsolescence. Poets pined for the old masculinity, but the days when the brawniest ruled the land were numbered. Brains now counted. So did the ability to adapt to new technologies. Just ask Elizabeth I." 

From AlterNet 

"A controversial new book argues that women are outperforming men at home, school and work. Is this the end of men?" 

Source:Al Jazeera- Hanna Rosen's book.

From Al Jazeera

Source:Hanna Rosin- from her book.

Warning: this article could be construed as politically incorrect by oversensitive tight asses. Actually, it probably will be.

Men, who needs them? A Far-Left pipe dream where men are not even welcome, or where masculinity disappears, or where all men are essentially gay. I find it ironic that people on the Far-Left who are so anti-male man-haters, tend to be somewhat dykish even and have masculine characteristics themselves. Even though they claim to be anti-masculinity. They see football, boxing, interest in cars, tools, gambling, checking out attractive women and I could go on, but I have other things I would like to accomplish in my life, but they see all of these activities as somehow sexist. Even though a lot of American women, straight even, like football, boxing, cars, tools, gambling, etc and are some of the most feminine, beautiful and sexy women you’ll ever see.

It is not so much masculinity that the man-hating sexist Far-Left doesn’t like. Well they don’t like masculinity, but it’s male masculinity and male heterosexuality that they don’t like. But if women are a Dyke, no problem, because she’s just being who she was born as. According to Socialists on the Far-Left who don’t like masculinity when it comes from straight men. You’ll never see straight men, or women who are to the right of Socialists, democratic or otherwise, which is only most of the world, try to put down female femininity. Because we love women, especially straight women. At least coming from a straight man. We love who they are and how versatile that they are. That they’re cute, beautiful, well-built, funny, but they’ll also stand up for themselves and watch sports with the guys.

There are straight women who like sports and there are straight men such as myself, who like soap operas. If they’re funny, well-written, well-done and seem to have some broader point other than: ‘who is Jake going to stab in the back now." Or whoever the character is. Without straight men and yes we tend to be masculine which is a common characteristic about straight men and something that straight women tend to like about us, we would have a country of gay men and overly adorable and feminine straight women who never grow up. We would be a national day care center and kindergarten class. With no one to fix the cars when they break down, police the streets, defend the country and so-forth. Because all the men would be makeup artists, or clothing designers. Well, I guess the dykes could handle the male responsibilities. It would be a strange universe where everyone who enters who use to live on Planet Earth would think they drank too much, or got too high the night before.

ESPN: Behind The Fights Documentary- Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson: February, 1990

Source:ESPN- Mike Tyson-Buster Douglas documentary.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame... is a series that examines the athletes, coaches, front office personnel and even fans who over the years have been blamed for either a team's failure, their individual failure, a bad trade, a bad draft pick, or the demise of a franchise. The shows begin by explaining why that individual or team has been blamed over the years and then it peels away the layers between fact and fiction and count down the Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame them. This fast-paced series is a mix of documentary storytelling and the entertaining elements that make countdown shows fun to watch... 

From Silver Samurai

I saw the James Douglas-Mike Tyson World Heavyweight Championship fight as a fourteen year old in junior high on HBO in February, 1990. Actually I saw the replay of it, after I heard the shocking news that James Buster Douglas defeated Iron Mike Tyson for the World Heavyweight Championship. It was shocking, because Mike Tyson look unbeatable for about five years from 1985 until 1990, holding the WHC for about four years. He just didn't look unbeatable, but he was destroying his opponents.

Iron Mike beat former world champions, but not just beating them, but destroying them. Like Frank Bruno, Mike Spinks, Larry Holmes, Tony Tucker, James Smith, and others. All guys who were world champions before and in Larry Holmes case one of the top 2-3 heavyweights and world champions of all- time. 

With Buster Douglas, you had a very talented fighter: tall, big, strong, accurate, with excellent boxing skills, but wasn't very disciplined. He was the perfect fighter to beat someone like Mike Tyson, because of his awesome size. And the ability to use it, he was able to keep Tyson off of him, by hitting him hard enough to keep him off and go to work on him.

Going into this fight, of course James Douglas beating Mike Tyson is not only one of the biggest upsets of the 1990s, but of all-time. But looking back at it now, James Douglas was simply good enough to beat Tyson. He had the skills and size to do it, as well as the training. 

Most of Iron Mike's opponents went at Tyson by trying to tie him up, to prevent Mike from throwing Mike's bombs at you. But what Buster did was a different strategy. He figured out the best way to keep Iron Mike off of you was by hitting him hard with a big jab, going on offense forcing Mike to take punishment as well, which set up Buster's other punches.

Brave New Foundation: 'Law & Disorder: How the System Really Works'

Source:Brave New Foundation- actor Dennis Farina, when he was on seasons 15/16 of Law & Order. RIP

Source:The Daily Journal

"On Law & Order, everything makes sense: the police chase after violent bad guys, the accused get a fair trial, and justice is blind. But is that the reality in the United States? Watch this video to have your mind blown about how unjust our system truly is.

Produced with the partnership of the American Civil Liberties Union, Constitution Project, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers." 

From Brave New Foundation

A lot of these law enforcement shows about the justice system, all though most of them are entertaining, only focus on a small percentage of the crimes. But again we are talking about entertainment here. Who would want to watch a show that’s about shoplifting, or traffic stops, drunk driving an so-forth. People need to be able to differentiate between reality and entertainment and many times they are not the same thing. But even if the law enforcement shows showed the criminal justice system for what it is that it a lot about drug crimes and drug offenders and that a lot of these supposed crimes happen in African-American communities in urban areas, these shows would be accused of racism. For always highlighting young African-American men as suspects and criminals.

If these law enforcement shows showed the criminal justice system for what it really is, that it is basically about low-level felonies like shoplifting and misdemeanors, who would watch? Again I get back to the entertainment factor here. A lot of these shows as far as the crimes and how the detectives and prosecutors do their jobs even though they aren’t completely accurate, are at least realistic. As professionals in the criminal justice system will tell you. And even though they do tend to concentrate on a low percentage of crimes that are committed in America, they tend to do a good and accurate job. And they are realistic in the sense that crimes in America are committed by all Americans as far as ethnicity and race. And they don’t focus on one racial, or ethnic group in America.

Again to go back to Hollywood and reality it’s not the job of Hollywood to show exactly what life if like and the subjects that they cover. There job is to be entertaining and hopefully realistic. Smart viewers want both, but unfortunately for lot of Americans they simply want to be entertained when they are watching TV. And even if these shows don’t show the criminal justice system for exactly what it is, again its Hollywood and if you’re a smart person you’re going to anyway how realistic the show is anyway by how informed you are about how the country works. And how much you know about current affairs in America including criminal justice, or whatever the issue is.

David Von Pein: Jack Paar Show- Robert F. Kennedy- March 13th, 1964

Source:David Von Pein- Jack Paar and U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, in 1964.

Source:The Daily Journal 

"Friday, March 13, 1964 -- Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy makes his first public appearance since the assassination of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, which occurred exactly sixteen weeks earlier (on November 22, 1963).

RFK elected to make his first post-assassination public appearance on "The Jack Paar Program". The studio audience, as expected, gave Bobby a lengthy standing ovation.

This video includes the first part of Jack Paar's 3/13/64 interview with Bobby Kennedy." 

From David Von Pein

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, a few months after his brother President John Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, goes on NBC's the Jack Parr Show. I guess he wanted to get back to living a normal life, or as normal of a life that a public official can have in America and get out of the funk he was in from losing his brother and did it in a big way by going on Jack Parr and trying to communicate to the world that he and his family were doing okay, or as well as they could be doing after seeing one of their family members assassinated. 

Bobby Kennedy came back in a big way in 1964. RFK wanted to make his life worth serving again the only way he knew how outside of his family by serving the public and being involved in public affairs. He was already Attorney General of the United States, but had other interests as well.

As Attorney General, RFK was influential in getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress. His speech at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, resigning from office right after that and running for U.S. Senate in New York. Where he wins there, partially thanks to President Johnson's landslide victory over Barry Goldwater with New York being one of those States. 

Bobby Kennedy not only came back in 1964, but came back in a big public way that few other people would've been able to come back from after a tragedy. Like losing a sibling in the manner that he did. 

The Jack Paar Show, was perfect for RFK because Jack was a very funny man, but also up to date on current affairs and interested in them. And was Bobby Kennedy being a Kennedy with their famous wit and intelligence.

1964, was a very depressing and yet liberating year for Bob Kennedy. First, he was Attorney General, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States, but for a man he hated President Lyndon Johnson, who was President Kennedy's Vice President. LBJ, not exactly best friends with RFK, but at least he let the Attorney General do his job. Unlike RFK who was always undermining any authority and responsibility that LBJ had as Vice President. But that is really a different discussion and perhaps debate, especially for RFK loyalists. 

RFK, didn't want to work for President Johnson and that is one reason why he decided to run for the Senate in 1964. And restore some freedom over his own personal life and career. And going on Jack Paar in early 1964, was the start of RFK returning to public life again. 

Reason Magazine: 'Nanny of the Month (August 2012): Stimulus Money Used to Support Soda Taxes'

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Our nation's nannies have turned up the heat this summer.

August's slate of control freaks includes the silver state statists who might fine you 2,000 bucks for the crime of teaching someone how to apply makeup, and the Phoenix code enforcer who busted a woman for handing out free water in 112-degree heat (!) because she didn't have a license. 

Yet neither could managed to muster the the meddling of this month's top pick. Using federal taxpayers' dough (we're talking stimulus and Obamacare cash) to implement local-level soda taxes and other nanny state laws certainly violates good taste, but the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General thinks it might also violate federal anti-lobbying provisions.  

Presenting Reason TV's Nanny of the Month for August 2012: Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius!

About 75 seconds."  

From Reason Magazine

Source:Real Life Journal- a Big Government Nanny?

Actually, I don't agree with this Nanny of The Month show from Reason. I did agree with the Nanny of The Month's for June and July. Mayor Mike Bloomberg essentially trying to outlaw soft drinks in New York and the people in Massachusetts trying to outlaw cursing in public. Thats exactly what political nannies are, people who try to protect others from themselves. 

What Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius was trying to do with her wellness campaign is preventive health care. Something we have to do as a country in order to bring down our health care costs.

What they are doing here is passing out funds from the Federal Government to encourage wellness campaigns. Not outlawing junk food, or junk drinks, but encouraging healthy dieting and exercise. Which is in our national interest, because it would bring down the health care costs for the country. 

This is not saying: "You have to eat and drink healthy and you have to exercise and if you don't, we'll lock you up in jail." Where you'll get less exercise and eat worse food, which is what we do in the War on Drugs, the definition of making problems worse by finding a problem, not only not fixing it, but making it worse.

The lady who got fined for handing out free water during one of the hottest summers we've ever had, which we are still having in most of the country, is a much better example of a nanny than the preventive health care campaign. And I would bet the fine that lady is going to have to pay is as much as we would be paying in sales taxes had she bought that water in a store and thats what this fine is about. This big government here thinking they were cheated in losing sales tax revenue. Because the people who got the bottle water got it for free and didn't pay sales taxes on it.

HBO Sports: Evander Holyfield vs Riddick Bowe- World Heavyweight Championship (1993)

Source:HBO Sports- for the World Heavyweight Championship.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Riddick Bowe defends the heavyweight title against Evander Holyfield - the rematch of their bout one year prior. Hosted by Jim Lampley, George Foreman, and Larry Merchant. Recorded on VHS November 1993." 

From Sterling Wainscott

I remember the Bowe-Holyfield Trilogy of the early and mid 1990s very well, because I got to see all three fights. I was a junior in high school during the first fight in 1992, saw it on pay per view after I begged my dad to order the fight and we ended up watching at least part of it together. 

I've always had a lot of respect for Evander Holyfield, because he's the ultimate of professionalism when it comes to not only pro boxing but pro sports as well. No other boxer has ever worked harder or had more dedication to his craft which generally speaking helped him a lot but it also hurt him.

Evander, ended up fighting too long and losing to guys and getting beat up by guys, that 5-10 years earlier he would've beaten fairly easily. And hopefully he hasn't paid a long-term price for that when it comes to his health, we'll see later. But one problem I had with Evander, is that he seemed to have it a little too easy, he hadn't gotten much of a big challenge in the heavyweight division to this point. George Foreman gave him a pretty good fight in 1991, but Evander won most of those rounds and I wanted to see someone who not only gave Evander a big test but could actually beat him and thats where Riddick Bowe came in.

Evander Holyfield wins the World Heavyweight Championship in 1990 by beating an overweight and overconfident James Douglas. Who probably thought way too much of himself after whipping and knocking out Mike Tyson for the Heavyweight Championship in January, 1990 in Japan. And before Evander fought Riddick Bowe, he defended his title successfully twice against two boxers who were once. Great but at this point of their careers were in the early forties, in George Forman and Larry Holmes. The super fight in the Heavyweight Division of the 1990s, was suppose to be Evander vs Mike Tyson.

With Iron Mike's rape case, Holyfield-Tyson, wasn't going to happen in the early 90s. Again this is where Riddick Bowe comes in: after coming off the 1988 Olympics where he didn't do as well as perhaps he should've, he was looking for a big challenge. And a chance to prove himself and why not fight for the World Heavyweight Championship and win it to accomplish it. 

The Bowe-Holyfield Trilogy was great because you have two great heavyweights at the prime of their careers. Probably the best two heavyweights of the 1990s, who both had a lot of respect for each other, who both knew that they had to be their best to beat the best, who was their opponent. Thats how they both saw these fights and why these fights worked out the way they did, two great fighters both bringing their a games to these fights.

Alan Meires: Joe Frazier, Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, On British TV (1989)

Source:Alan Meires- George Forman, Joe Frazier, and Muhammad Ali. Three real World Heavyweight Champions, from the 1970s.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Frazier, Ali and Foreman On British TV Show Very Funny. I found this buy luck the British BBC  was broadcasting this as a tribute to the late Great Jo Fraziers Death. 18 October 1989" 

From Alan Meires

Three giants in the ring and two of the funniest people who've ever lived in Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. Without Parkinson's, imagine Big George and Muhammad, doing a two-man comedy routine and show together. Muhammad, going off on all his opponents that he beat and George telling people how fat people can succeed in America. Or at least people with big mouths and appetites. 

Joe Frazier, not exactly known for humor, but I don't know of a better heavyweight champion who was under 6'0 at least since the 1960s who was better. He's definitely one of the best 5-10 heavyweight champions of all-time. Even though his time as a world champion or even world championship contender was over by his early thirties.

Unless you want to put Larry Holmes in this group who didn't become the World Heavyweight Champion until 1978, I believe we're talking about the three best heavyweight boxers of the 1970s. Muhammad, won the World Heavyweight Championship twice and was 3-1 against these other two great boxers. 

Joe Frazier, was World Heavyweight Champion for what, five years. And it took someone as big and strong as a George Foreman to beat him. 

George beat Smokin Joe twice and George also beat Kenny Norton and some other great boxers. And you could even argue that George underachieved in the 1970s and perhaps should have accomplished more. So this is a great group that was on TV together.