Woody Allen: Rare Standup From 1965

Source:Woody Allen- performing standup comedy in 1965.

"Woody Allen standup '65 RARE!"

From Woody Allen

Source:The Daily Review- Woody Allen, performing standup comedy in 1965.

If I was robbed four times in a month (as Woody Allen claimed) not that I was robbed, but that he was, hum? Gee I don’t know, how about moving! Just throwing a thought out there. Actually, after the second time I was robbed, I think I would have moved. Especially if I was in his situation, or was doing better. 

Nuevo York, a mui loco ciudad! New York, a very crazy city (for any English speakers who happen to see this) they go from way too much crime and a city of eight-million people in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, that can’t defend itself, even though it’s the economic center of the world, (where all those high tax dollars go) to a city in the 1990s where you could be arrested for even viewing porn. Perhaps even jaywalking, hailing for a cab with your middle finger.

If a city is too dangerous to go outside, it’s too dangerous to live there. I know, another strike of commonsense there. I guess people could work from home and order all of their food in. Have the dentist and barber come over, etc. But if that is what people are doing, then the people making all the deliveries are risking their lives by going outside everyday and going to other people’s homes in New York. And don’t forget, even if they get out of their homes and business’s safely, they might risk being kidnapped, or robbed at the place where they’re making their delivery. 

I’ve never understood how big wealthy cities haven’t been able to defend themselves. And gee I don’t know, invest a good deal of their resources into their law enforcement so the city can defend itself. But I guess that just comes from not being a New Yorker. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Stand Apart Comedy: Bob Newhart- 'On the Jack Paar Show (1965)

Source:Stand Apart Comedy- comedian Bob Newhart, on The Jack Paar Show in 1965. Good job, Bob!

"Bob Newhart has trouble flying. Airdate: May 28, 1965. Available through Time-Life Video." 

From Stand Apart Comedy

I'm personally not crazy about flying myself. But not because I'm worried about the plane crashing, but because I'm 6'5 and 220 pounds or so and even in economy plus, I'm generally not that comfortable on an airplane. And besides generally when I fly I'm going from the East Coast to the West Coast which is a six-hour trip going out West. This is going to sound horrible, but not liking flying is a hell of an excuse for not seeing my family out there. Because I can always say that is a long way to fly for just a few days, or even a week and then to fly back. 

As far as bathrooms, or food on the plane: I think I rather do those things in jail. Not that I want to do those things in jail, but if it's a choice between one or the other, well maybe I would lean towards the plane. Because I know I'll getting out of there in hours, instead of years. (If the plane doesn't crash or get hijacked) And I won't be in jail, it will just feel like it.

As far as having more accidents in the bathroom than on a plane: sure! For people who aren't potty-trained yet. Oh, you mean people slipping on wet floors and that kind of thing. Well maybe they're not bath, or shower-trained yet either. Seriously, how hard is it to keep all of the water to take a bath or a shower in the tub? We're humans, not horses. 

There's only so much water that a human needs (assuming they shower on a regular basis) in order to bath and shower themselves. And if water gets on the floor anyway, because I don't know you're just coming back from Africa, or perhaps someplace where showers are illegal, or water is not available, or maybe you weigh over three-hundred pounds, just waking up from a coma from watching a Jean-Claude Van-Damme movie marathon, or something and you need a lot of water to bathe yourself. Here's a tip: dry the floor before you get in the shower and use a mat to step on when you get out.

University of California Television: An Evening With Christopher Buckley (2009)

Source:University of California Television- talking to Christopher Buckley.

"Political satirist (”Thank You For Smoking”) Christopher Buckley brings down the house in this raucous interview with host Dean Nelson as part of the 2009 Writer’s Symposium by the Sea, sponsored by Point Loma Nazarene University...

From the University of California Television 

I like Chris Buckley’s line saying that it is unfair for satirists, because they are now in competition with USA Today. Applying that a lot of jokes come true, or as I would put it, get elected. We now have a Congress that represents America. Not exactly the best of America, I hope now anyway. Or maybe I’ll join Alec Baldwin the next time he threatens, or is generous enough to leave America. 

USA Today is supposed to be in the business of news and report serious issues. Satirists, are in the business to make fun of what’s going on and life in general. The problem for satirists is that USA Today and other news organizations now report on a lot of things that look like comedy. Like the government shutting down, because the House of Representatives can’t get the President to repeal his own signature legislation.

Sarah Palin, who I actually have a lot of respect for as a satirist, comedian and a beautiful woman, (even if someone who has just graduated from high school is more qualified to be either President, or Vice President of the United States) is the perfect example of satire, or a real-life comedy story. 

In Supreme Courtship, Chris Buckley, writes about a fictional character from Texas, a very attractive female judge who loves firearms and the Southwestern Texas lifestyle. Sarah Palin, who other than being from Alaska instead of Texas, has a lot in common with the fictional Texas judge. A very attractive woman with a keen sense of humor, from rural Alaska, who loves the country lifestyle and is a big fan of guns, who has a great personality. But who is more qualified to be a fictional TV character than Vice President of the United States. And yet she’s nominated for Vice President by the candidate who comes within a few large states of winning the presidency.

As I’ve blogged before, you can’t follow Washington politics and that is national politics and I’m sure Washington city politics as well, without a sense of humor. Unless you have a lot of money that you don’t know what to do with and decide to spend all that money on shrinks and vacations at mental institutions as a patient. Because you’re suffering from a severe case of depression. Because there’s so much nonsense (to be nice, bullshit to be accurate) that happens here that we all pay for.

U.S. Senators, who rather be president to the point that they their main job becomes running for president, instead of serving their people in Congress that the taxpayers have to pay for. 

A taxpayer-funded Defense Department that is so big that it can’t be audited. One f the funniest true stories of all-time. 

Taxpayer Congressional investigations that purely designed to hurt the leading presidential candidate from the other party. 

The largest entitlement programs in the world that are going broke if they’re not fixed. That no one in Congress has the balls to actually fixed, because that might mean that they have to go home and find a real job, that they’re a lot less qualified for.

But again the problem with satirists and people who write satiric books for a living about current affairs, is that it becomes harder to find new stories to write about even if you think you have something that is really funny. Because chances are that story is actually true, or something very similar to that has already happened. Tobacco companies have said under oath that tobacco is not addictive. Which was the story in Chris Buckley’s Thank You For Smoking.

We actually do have a Congress that makes con man, used car salesman, personal injury attorney’s, gold diggers, look popular. As well as the nerd in class whose hand is always up to not only answer every question, but answers the questions that the teacher puts to other students and then wonders why they never have any money for lunch, or are always getting kicked in the butt. Because their lunch money is always stolen and they’re wearing a kick men sign on their butt.

The thing about Washington and American government is that jokes are not just funny, but they get elected and a lot funny made for Hollywood stories actually come true. You would go nuts and became Michelle Bachmann’s roommate at a mental institution if you couldn’t laugh about it. But that is democracy for you. 

As the great political satirist George Carlin said, “politicians are a reflection of the people.” They’re not God, or aliens from another planet, or even robots. (Even if they look and act like them for their lobbyists) And they represent the best and worst of us.

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

CNN: 'Marilyn Monroe and The Kennedys'

Source:The Daily Review- Robert F. Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, John F. Kennedy.

"CNN's Erin McPike reports on revelations of Marilyn Monroe and the Kennedys found in a Hollywood investigator's notes. For more CNN videos, visit our site a CNN."

Source:CNN- RFK, JFK, and MM. 

From CNN

John F. Kennedy, is my number one political hero, but as great as a politician as he was and in many ways a great man, he never becomes President of the United States if the media back then bothered to report on the personal lives of politicians. Only tabloids did that and as most people know tabloids aren’t taken seriously especially when it comes to politicians. At least by intelligent people.

Jack Kennedy, is simply one of the most irresponsible politicians we’ve ever had at least as far as how he lived his personal life. He had personal and even friendly relationships with gangsters and friends of gangsters. And even had an affair as a married man with the girlfriend of a gangster in Judy Campbell. The girlfriend of Italian gangster Sam Giacana.

Marilyn Monroe, is an example of the recklessness of Jack Kennedy. Not that Marilyn was a bad person, because the opposite is true there, but she was a very immature, baby-faced adorable, woman, whose personality and maturity didn’t seem much older. Who was mentally unstable and had Hollywood fantasies that Jack would divorce his wife Jackie and that Marilyn would become next First Lady of the United States.

All Jack wanted from Marilyn was her body, sex, and a good time. Which might sound really rude, if not crude, but he never saw Marilyn as long-term romance material and not marriage material. But to be completely honest: I don’t believe he ever saw any woman as marriage material, at least in the sense he would settle down with her and give up all of his affairs.

Jack, officially broke it off with Marilyn in 1962 and of course didn’t have the decency and wasn’t man enough to personally tell her that himself. And had his brother and most trusted aid Bobby do that for him. But that is as far as it goes with how Marilyn was after she got the news and how they effected her.

There’s no real evidence if any evidence, of anyone being in the house other than Marilyn and her housekeeper the night that she died at home. The most loyal of Marilyn fans will never except that a woman this sexy, beautiful, and adorable, with the great personality, sense of humor, talent and everything else, and entertainer who was headed to Hollywood Hall of Fame has she lived in normal live in years, that she killed herself. Accidentally, or otherwise and that is why these conspiracy theories that someone murdered her exist.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

Marilyn Monroe Documentaries: 'Unsolved Mysteries- Who Killed Marilyn Monroe?'

Source:The Daily Review- Hollywood Babydoll Marilyn Monroe.

"A Documentary surrounding the death of Marilyn Monroe."

Source:Marilyn Monroe Documentarys- Talking about the death of Marilyn Monroe.

From Marilyn Monroe Documentaries

We know who killed Marilyn Monroe. Well that is everyone familiar with the story and this incredible for good and bad Hollywood Goddess and her life and how she lived, who is not a current resident at a mental hospital, an escaped mental patient whose on the lam, as well as anyone capable of understanding commonsense and real evidence that is right in front of them that even a blind person could see.

Marilyn, not intentionally, but again that is the question here whether this was suicide, or an accidental death like someone driving off a cliff after losing control of the car. Because she was both a very irresponsible woman, who had real mental issues and not always in complete control of what she was doing. Who for whatever reasons could never understand everything that she had going for her.

“A depressed Marilyn Monroe who committed suicide.” That is the only question here. Did she kill herself intentionally, or accidentally. A depressed woman who one hot night in Los Angeles decides that life is hell and she can’t take it anymore and takes enough pills to kill three people. Well, that is more believable than U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy coming by one night and killing her so the affair she had with his brother President Jack Kennedy, doesn’t get out.

But again we’re talking about an unstable woman who drank too much, who perhaps could have given Jim Morrison a run for his money when it came to drinking alcohol in one night. Who took a lot of pills as well to make herself feel better and numb her reality which she thought was hell. But would have been paradise for perhaps 9-10 other Americans. Which again goes to her mental unbalance.

I believe the only solid theory to how Marilyn Monroe died was that she accidentally killed herself from a drug overdose. A bad combination of alcohol and sleeping pills. Remember, a mentally unbalanced woman who drank a lot and probably drank herself to sleep on a regular basis, especially since her career was basically on hold now, because she was becoming even more unprofessional at work and getting fired from movie roles. Who also took sleeping pills every night to numb herself along with the alcohol.

This is the only believable theory here, because no one has offered any evidence that someone else killed her. And has no evidence of anyone else being there and who that person could have possibly be. She wasn’t alone that night, because her housekeeper was asleep down the hall. Had someone broke in to kill Marilyn, the housekeeper would have known about it. Which is why the second killer theory simply doesn’t hold. Along with no evidence of anyone else being there. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Salon: Steve Almond & Diane Roberts: 'I'm a Feminist With a Football Obsession'

Source:Salon Magazine- Tallahassee's Doak Campbell Stadium: hone of the Seminoles.

"For those fans tortured by the moral quandaries that now surround the multi-billion dollar college football industry — quandaries that begin with an unpaid workforce and proceed all the way to potential brain damage — Diane Roberts’ new book will offer little solace."

From Salon

"CONAN Highlight: Bill explains that ladies are so jealous of mens' simplistic, football-loving brains, they'll never be happy until the NFL is destroyed."  

Source:Team Coco- comedian Bill Burr offending every single radical, feminist, in America. Well, perhaps just all the radical, militant, feminists, who watch Conan O'Brien. So Bill Burr can take a deep breath again.

From Team Coco

I think its clear why so-called feminists and the broader New-Left in America hate American football. Its masculine, its tough, it’s a sport for men, designed for TV, like in the real-world there are winners and losers. 

The New-Left in America (Socialists and Communists) probably even see football as sexist, because its such a manly, straight-man’s game. (If you will) And yet there’s a quality about American football that the New-Left and Socialists tend to be fans of. Football is about as collectivist of a sport as you can imagine. Maybe only soccer is more collectivist, because football is all about teamwork.

To run the ball, the center has to correctly snap the ball to the quarterback. The quarterback has to correctly take the ball from center and then correctly hand the ball off to the tailback, or fullback and perhaps fake the handoff to the fullback and give it to the tailback. 

The runner, has to take the ball and hit the correct hole and run hard. The offensive line, has to create the hole for the runner. All of these things are basic fundamental procedures. 

But if you watch American football on a regular basis, these basic steps are screwed up on a regular basis. The QB is not ready for the snap, the center snaps it too soon, or doesn’t snap it at all, because he thinks the snap count is higher. The QB hands off the ball to a runner who is not there. The runner drops the handoff. An offensive lineman, false starts, etc.

Football, is not boxing. You can’t play well if your teammates around do also don’t their jobs. Every player in the came is dependent on everyone else to do their job. You can have the greatest QB and receivers in the league. But if your offensive line can’t pass protect, your receivers will never see the ball. At least downfield, because your QB will usually be on the ground before he can get rid of the ball. And that is just the offense, which I’m probably more familiar with as a fan. 

But good luck to your linebackers making tackles for loss and at the line of scrimmage, if your defensive line is consistently getting blocked downfield, with you left to clean up the mess. You want a pass rush from your DL, your corners and safeties need to cover the receivers for more than a couple of seconds so your DL can get up the field and hit the quarterback.

You want good pass coverage on defense, you need a consistent pass rush so your secondary is not left to cover good speedy receivers 5-6 seconds per pass play. They need to get to the quarterback in 2-3. Don’t have to sack him every play, but get the QB to throw the ball quicker than he wants to. Hit him as he’s throwing the ball, or right after it. Make him try to scramble. 

And for a pass rusher to be effective like a defensive end, defensive tackle rush linebacker, they need the pass rushers on the other side to do their jobs as well. So they’re not always doubled and triple-teamed. 

You’re not going to find a more collectivist and perhaps even socialist sport than American football. I bet Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is a football fan. The question is, does he follow the New York Giants, or New England Patriots, because he’s lived in both places. But you would have to ask Senator Sanders that.

American football, is violent, its rugged, its gritty, comes with a lot of risks and people do get hurt from it and comes with a lot of costs. But it’s about as American of an activity as we have. And a reason why Americans love America and being American. 

But there’s a big reason the Super Bowl is always the highest rated sporting event in the world every year. Because millions of people outside of America watch the game and even come here to see it. People from collectivist social democracies, who tend to claim that they don’t like a lot of what America stands for. And don’t like a lot of the qualities and characteristics about American football. And yet they come to our country, emigrate to our country watch our sports, including football. Because it's such an exciting game where you can’t be successful at it without collectivism and teamwork 

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger.

Paramount Pictures: Where Love Has Gone (1964) Susan Hayward & Mike Connors Star

Source:TCM- Where Love Has Gone, from 1964.

“Contractor Luke Miller returns to the San Francisco home of his ex-wife, sculptress Valerie Hayden, after learning that their 15-year-old daughter, Dani, has been arrested for the murder of Valerie’s lover. His plane is met by lawyer Gordon Harris, who callously engineered Luke’s divorce and deprived him of the right to visit his daughter. Now, however, Harris asks Luke’s help in providing a favorable family setting for the juvenile court hearing but discourages any hopes of gaining Dani’s custody once the case is resolved. Luke’s return revives memories of his former life with Valerie and her domineering mother, Mrs. Gerald Hayden. When Luke and Valerie are married, he aspires to become an independent architect, but Mrs. Hayden forces him into a business partnership with her. Valerie, ignorant of her mother’s underhanded ways, blames Luke for being weak; his subsequent drinking problem and her adultery combine to destroy the marriage . Terrified that her mother might be awarded custody of the child, Valerie takes moral responsibility for the murder at the hearing; in addition, she blames her failure as a mother on her own sorry upbringing, a disclosure that both discredits and humiliates Mrs. Hayden. Freed at last from her mother’s domination, Valerie commits suicide, making possible a reunion between Dani and Luke.”

From TCM

"The most wonderful thing about this marriage ... I'm not a Hayden anymore ... I'm a Miller

Source:Paramount Pictures- Mike Connors & Susan Hayward.

Source:Lorre B

“Despite the fact that Susan looks sensational at 47, her flashbacks as a blushing bride and new mama are a stretch. Mike Connors as the young war hero/groom, at 39, was pushing credibility, too. It’s to Susan’s no-nonsense credit that she didn’t draw outside the lines of nature with makeup and become a caricature of herself like many golden era divas.”

Source:Rick's Real Reels- Hollywood Babydoll's Joey Heatherton and Susan Hayward. 

Hollywood Babydoll’s Joey Heatherton and Susan Hayward. Joey is actually like 18 at this point, but seems more like 12-13 in the movie. And Susan even at 46-47 (depending on when this photo was taken) looks and acts like 20 year old in the movie, because she was always so cute and beautiful and immature.

From Rick's Real Reels

I haven’t thought about this, until I just read it, but if you’re familiar with the great Lana Turner, (as an actress and goddess) and you’re familiar with Where Love Has Gone from 1964, the story about Valerie Hayden’s daughter Danielle Miller (played by Joey Heatherton) who ends up killing her mother’s boyfriend, is very similar to Lana’s daughter Cheryl Krane, who ends up killing her mother’s boyfriend Johnny Stompanato. 

The Stompanato killing, happened in real-life and both killings happened when the killer’s mother is involved in a dispute with their boyfriend. I’m not an expert on Lana Turner, most of what I’ve learned about her has been in the last two years. But she lived a crazy life as if she was always drunk or something and didn’t know what the hell she was doing. Valerie Hayden, (played by the great Susan Hayward) lives a similar life as Lana in this movie.

As far as this movie: great movie! It is very dramatic, if not traumatic when you’re talking about a family that is led by a very overprotective mother, (played by Bette Davis) who is always making moves regarding her daughter’s life and makes those moves on her behalf and rarely if ever consults her daughter about what she’s doing for her. 

And as a result her daughter even though she’s this gorgeous, baby-faced, sexy, intelligent, talented woman, ends up being somewhat immature and irresponsible. Because her mother has a lot of control over her own life. She meets World War II U.S. Army hero Luke Miller (played by Mike Connors) and falls in love with and perhaps hoping she can find some independence from her mother. They get married, but now Mrs. Hayden, (played by Bette Davis) wants to control her daughter and her new son-in law. And has him blacklisted so he has no other choice, but to work for her company.

Again, this is a very dramatic if not traumatic movie and yet its pretty funny as well. And maybe that just because of Susan Hayward, who had this Liz Taylor quality of being able to combine drama, with comedy and humor. Who plays a very adorable and immature irresponsible woman, who goes too far, because now she’s married to man who has just gotten out of the U.S. Army and fought in World War II. Whose use to giving orders, not taking them. Who doesn’t have any patience for the games and soap opera tactics of her wife and mother in law. 

This was never a relationship that was designed to work out. The Miller’s, get divorced, Luke is out of the picture and has no input with how his daughter is raised and Valerie (played by Susan Hayward) finds a new man before she dumps her husband and that is how her boyfriend gets killed. Because she has a fight with him with her daughter stepping in to end the fight and kills her mother’s boyfriend.

I think Where Love Has Gone, is also a very entertaining and funny movie, especially if you’re familiar with life of Lana Turner, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. Gorgeous, adorable, talented and yet immature and irresponsible woman. Whose always involved with the wrong man while having young daughter to take care of. In Lana’s case, Italian gangster Johnny Stompanato. 

Valerie, gets involved with a man after Luke Miller, who isn’t a good man and he ends up being killed by her daughter. Luke Miller, by most accounts is a good man, but he only gets back in his daughter’s life after she’s charged with her murder of her mother’s boyfriend. This movie looks like a great soap opera. With a lot of great drama, writing, acting and humor, which all great soap operas have and I’m a big fan of it. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

David Von Pein: The Tonight Show- Jim Garrison vs Johnny Carson, January 31st, 1968

Source:David Von Pein- New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, in 1967 or 68.

"New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison discusses the assassination of President Kennedy with Johnny Carson on NBC's "The Tonight Show" on January 31, 1968. Audio only."

From David Von Pein

I always found it interesting about Jim Garrison and why would a New Orleans District Attorney be investigating the assassination of a U.S. President who was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Which is about a thousand miles or so from New Orleans. And spend ten years of New Orleans taxpayer dollars on this investigation an investigation that was under the jurisdiction of the Dallas PD and the FBI.

And I don't believe Oliver Stone's JFK movie from 1991 which I've seen several times, has ever made that clear. If you want to know why Oliver Stone is such a conspiracy theorist, is because of serious people like Jim Garrison who come up with these incredible theories. Maybe it's just me, but you would think a big city District Attorney like Jim Garrison would have enough crime cases of his own to investigate.

The only conspiracy theory that I believe is worth considering, that any serious person with respect on these issues, someone like Robert Blakey, who was the Chief Counsel of the House Assassinations Committee in the late 1970s that looked into the JFK assassination, is the theory involving organized crime. Especially the Italian Mafia in America in Dallas and Chicago in particular. They clearly wanted President John Kennedy killed and would have had the access and power to pull it off.

And Lee Harvey Oswald, who wasn't interested in his own personal safety and freedom, would have been the perfect assassin for the Italian Mafia who hated President Kennedy. Not saying that the Italian Mafia did have Kennedy assassinated, but they could've done it if they wanted to pull it off. And the Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald connections, I believe give this theory credibility.

I think it's obvious that Lee Oswald was the assassin who killed President Kennedy. It was his gun, he worked at the Dallas Book Depository, he had the means, motive, access, he could pull this off and was a good enough shooter to do it. The only question here is did anyone put him up to it. Was this a one-man operation, or were there others involved. Like members of Chicago or Dallas organized crime.

Jack Kennedy, had plenty of enemies on the Far-Right in Dallas and perhaps Texas as a whole. The Far-Left especially Communists like Lee Oswald, hated him as well. The Italian Mafia hated Kennedy, because his administration was serious about putting them out of business. After the Mafia helped Kennedy get elected president especially in Chicago in 1960. With all of these factors its hard to believe that one little loser could have pulled off this assassination by himself. Which is how these conspiracy theories come about. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Dennis Miller Live: Christopher Hitchens (2001)

Source:Generic Name- Dennis Miller Live in 2001.

"Opinionated political iconoclast, CHRISTopher Hitchens, talks with, smart aleck, raconteur, Dennis Miller. His 2nd appearance on the show." 

From Generic Name 

“Christopher Hitchens on Dennis Miller Live. (2001)” Originally from Bitcoin Faucets, but the video has been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

Source:Bitcoin Faucets- Dennis Miller Live with guess who.

Chris Hitchens, seemed to hate Bill Clinton so much that he almost loved the man. His hatred of Billy Jeff, reminds me of the pastor and activist on the Christian-Right who claims how evil and dangerous homosexuality is, it comes out that he’s gay himself. And has had relationships with adolescent boys. The strongest opponents of homosexuality in several cases have been closeted gays. I guess the thinking that if they act all butch and are strongly against homosexuality in public, no one will ever know they actually speak with a high voice and cheat on their third wives with men. 

Without Bill Clinton, what would Hitchens have to write about in the 1990s? Wait, Tony Blair and New Labour coming to power in Britain? He might hate Tony Blair more than Bill Clinton actually, if that’s possible.

Keep in mind, Chris Hitchens was a Democratic Socialist. Bill Clinton, New Democrat, who moved the Democratic Party from this malaise of Utopians who were never happy about anything except when new news got worst and more people were suffering and they could make a case for more big government. 

I've always thought that Hitch's (not Alfred Hitchcock) main beef with William J. Clinton, was the fact that Clinton wasn't a what they call in Britain, at least, a Social Democrat. That he was a Classical Liberal, who would be center-right, at least in Britain, instead of the left-winger, that Democrats got stereotyped as, at least before 1992. That I think is the main beef that Hitchens had with Billy Jeff. To the point that he calls the man a rapist without much if any evidence to back up that charge. 

Billy Jeff, if he wasn’t a busy and important man and had better things to do other than concern himself with Chris Hitchens, could have sued him for libel and probably have a hell of a case. Hitchens reminds me a little of the Republican political strategist/JFK assassination conspiracy theorist Roger Stone, who officially will never support the Warren Report, even though he’s probably smart enough to. (Jury is still out) And has written books arguing that Vice President Lyndon Johnson had President Kennedy killed.

I’m surprised that Oliver Stone hasn’t picked up on one of Chris Hitchens’s conspiracy theories. And made a movie or documentary about one of them. There are certainly enough dumb people and escaped mental patients, or people who should be committed, that would see that film for the movie to make money. Maybe Oliver Stone and Bill Clinton are friends, or Stone at least is an admirer of Clinton. Perhaps a contributor to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign or a member of her husband’s Foundation’s board. 

This is where Hitchens was at least in the 1990s and early 2000s, a left-wing conspiracy theorist, who seemed to be campaigning for the best room at the nuthouse. Before he became a Neoconservative, who wanted Islam destroyed or something. And jumped into President Bush’s back pocket (no more room in the front pockets) and became a cheerleader for the so-called War on Terror and the Iraq War. When Hitchens was focused on something, he wouldn’t let it ago. Until he found something else to bury himself in. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

NFL Films: The Story of The 1982 St. Louis Cardinals

Source:Wikipedia- the Cardinals playing the Green Bay Packers at Lambeau Field, in Green Bay in 1982.

"The 1982 St. Louis Cardinals season was the franchise’s 63rd year with the National Football League and the 23rd season in St. Louis. It was the Cardinals first postseason appearance since 1975, and their last before the team’s 1988 move to Arizona, as well as the last NFL postseason appearance for any St. Louis franchise until the Rams’ Super Bowl championship season of 1999. The 1982 Football Cardinals were 5–4 during the regular-season.

This season would be the last season the Cardinals made the playoffs until 1998, when the team was far into its current tenure in Arizona." 

From Wikipedia

I remember the NFL’s St. Louis Cardinals pretty well, because I started watching football in the early and mid 1980s and even though the Cardinals are from St. Louis, they played in the NFC East with the Redskins. So I got to see the Cardinals twice a year for about six seasons. 

And I always remember them playing the Redskins very tough even though the Redskins were always better. The Redskins won two Super Bowls and won three NFC championships and the Cardinals made one playoff appearance, but they had three winning seasons. They were a very talented group that would win 8-9 games and barely miss the except 1982 under head coach Jim Hanifan. And I guess that is why I’m interested in a team that only made one playoff appearance in the 1980s.

The 1980s Cardinals, probably should have won more. They had an All-Pro quarterback in Neil Lomax. Who if his career wasn’t cut short due to injury is probably in the Hall of Fame today. If you look at their backfield they had OJ Anderson, who perhaps should be in the Hall of Fame today. Definitely one of the best tailbacks of the 1980s. Who had great size and power at 6’2 225 pounds, but was also fast and could run away from you. Very similar to OJ Simpson, Jim Brown, or Eric Dickerson. 

The Cardinals also had Stump Mitchell behind OJ. Who was a great runner and receiver, similar to Joe Washington. And Neil Lomax had receivers Roy Green, Mel Gray and later JT Smith and tight end Pat Tilley. And a good offensive line with Hall of Famer Dan Dierdorf, Louis Sharpe and Joe Bostic. This was a team that had a lot of talent on offense and had good players on defense. Like defensive Freddie Joe Nunn and linebacker EJ Junior.

The 1980s St. Louis Cardinals, were very good and contended a lot, but they had a habit of putting scares into good winning teams that won consistently, but not enough to actually win the game. They would upset a very good team and then lose to a bad team. They either gave up on Jim Hanifan too soon, or replaced him with the wrong head coach in Gene Stallings. 

I think pretender is the best way to describe the Cardinals of this era. Seemed like every season they looked like they were good enough to win and would get back to the NFC Playoffs and maybe even win the NFC East. But they wouldn’t close the door and would lose at the last-minute. Make a key mistake when they couldn’t afford it. But similar to the New Orleans Saints pre-Jim Mora they were a fun team to watch. But only better than the Saints. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

The Real Strategy: Christopher Kemmett: 'Real Retards Vote- Why you Don't Want to Stop Them'

Source:The Daily Review- Uncle Sam, is coming for you. Hide your wallets and bank accounts. Actually, hide everything you own, including yourself. LOL

From The Real Strategy

“Nearly two-thirds of American voters feel the US is on the wrong track and “out of control,” according to a new poll from Politico. The survey provides for stark reading, showing over half of the country disapproves of President Barack Obama as well as the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and is uncertain over issues ranging from the economy to terrorism. RT’s Alexey Yaroshevsky digs into the numbers to provide more details.”

Source:RT America- “RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government. Wikipedia."

From RT America

When I saw this post on The Real Strategy a blog I’ll admit I’m not that familiar with, it got me thinking about the title of a book from the great political humorist P.J. O’Rourke. Where he says, “don’t vote. It just encourages the bastards.” Which came out in 2009-10. What O’Rourke is implying there if not just flat-out saying is that when you vote for politicians, or their opponents, you’re endorsing them and what they do. When the fact is the problem is what American politicians do for us and in too many cases do for us. By making our lives more difficult by doing too much, or not what they’re constitutionally required to by law, which is to pass the budget that funds the government.

As a Democrat, I’m a big fan of democracy short of empowering the majority to rule over the minority. Big reason why I’m a Liberal Democrat and not a Social Democrat, which is more common in Europe. But the main problem with American politics is not our politicians and I mean our crooked and bought hyper-partisan politicians. The main problem with American politics are the voters who vote for those politicians. People say especially with the Left where I’m proud to be (Center-Left that is) that if we just have higher turnout we would get better politicians and people more representative of who they’re supposed to represent. The problem with that is again if you have more people voting, you’re going to have at least with the current state of the American voter, you’ll have more dumb people voting for people who they don’t know. Getting sucked in by an oil-slick politician or candidate. Who has no intention of doing what they campaigned on.

You can pass all the great campaign reform laws that you want, but if you still have the same dumb voters who are either too dumb to vote for the people who’ll best represent them and vote for the worst alternative possible instead, or don’t bother to research candidates and politicians they’re considering voting for and just go off of soundbites, or the person whose most up to date with pop culture references, or technology, or campaign commercials, or they think one candidate is not as bad as the other person, so for that very and only reason the lesser evil deserves their vote over the really evil person, we’re always going to have an American public complaining about how bad our political system and government is. Even though they are responsible for creating that very government and system themselves.

We don’t need more voters. We need better voters. We need people who actually take voting seriously and take it as seriously as they would when their buying a home, a car, deciding where to send their kid to college and everything else they value, their i-pad, or i-pod, what so-called reality TV show to watch, etc. And with a more educated public when it comes to voting, you’ll see better politicians and better government and with that you’ll not just to see more voters, but more educated voters. With politicians having fewer dopes they can rely on who’ll buy beach out in Cincinnati if you tell them that you have one there for sale simply because you told them that. And since they failed geography and social studies in high school, aren’t even aware that Cincinnati is nowhere near and ocean. And probably couldn’t even find it on a map if they were standing there. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

New York Giants Fans: 'Cowboys-Giants Rivalry'

Source:New York Giants Fans- New York Giants head coach Tom Coughlin.

"Giants Chronicles explores the history of the Giants-Cowboys rivalry" 

From the New York Giants Fans

This photo was the original photo from this video about the Giants-Cowboys rivalry. But that video is currently available online right now.

Source:NFL Films- New York or New Jersey (depending on your perspective) vs Dallas.

The NFC East division is the best division in the NFL, because every team hates everyone else. Maybe only the AFC North can say that about their division. You got Giants-Eagles, Redskins-Cowboys, Redskins-Giants, Eagles-Cowboys, these are all great rivalries. The Redskins-Eagles rivalry has been very good over the years especially the last thirty years or so. 

The Giants-Cowboys rivalry even though it is a rivalry and both teams respect and get up for each other, might be the last rivalry in the NFC East. Both teams are separated by about 2000 miles. Other than this century both teams haven't been good at the same time for the most part. The Cowboys were great in the 1970s, the Giants perhaps the worst franchise of the 1970s. The Giants were good in the mid and late 1980s as the Cowboys were in decline. The Cowboys were the team of the 1990s, while the Giants were struggling to make the NFC Playoffs, for the most part.

The Giants, might have a bigger rivalry with the Chicago Bears and San Francisco 49ers over the years, if you look at all the great games they've had with both franchises. Especially the 49ers which goes back to 1981 and where they seemed to be playing each other on Monday Night Football every year in the 1980s, or in the playoffs. 

As you see in this video most of the great games that the Giants and Cowboys have played against each other has been in the last 5-10 years or so. So you might be able to say that the Giants-Cowboys rivalry has been great during this period, or is one of the best rivalries in the NFL right now. Similar to the Baltimore Ravens and Pittsburgh Steelers, or the Ravens and Cincinnati Bengals. But historically the Giants main rivals have been the Eagles and Redskins and then after that the 49ers and Bears, as far as the big games that they've played. With the Cowboys, it has been the Redskins and Eagles and then the 49ers as well.

To me at least, great NFL rivalries are historic. They survive through the years with people being able to say: "Remember that great game against them thirty years ago when we beat them for the division? Reminds me of that game last year when they beat us for the division." Just because a rivalry is hot, or sexy, or however you want to phrase it, doesn't make it a great rivalry if no one cares about it 3-5 years from now. Because both teams have moved on, or perhaps are struggling now, or just one team is struggling with other getting the better of their games. 

And yes, since both the Cowboys and Giants have been regular playoff contenders the last ten years or so and generally have both been in the NFC East race, they've played a lot of big games against each other and have done that in prime-time. But that doesn't put it in the same class as the Redskins-Cowboys, Giants-Eagles, Redskins-Giants, who go back forever against each other and have played a lot of great games against each other going back fifty-years. The Cowboys first big rival was the Redskins. Then the Eagles and then the Giants. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

The Rubin Report: Sam Harris and Dave Rubin- 'Talk Religion, Politics, Free Speech'

Source:The Rubin Report- Dave Rubin & Sam Harris.

"Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Sam Harris about Islam, Sam's debate with Ben Affleck on Real Time with Bill Maher, free speech, political correctness, and much more. Sam also addresses the five biggest accusations that are thrown at him from "when you say Islam you mean all Muslims" to "you want a nuclear first strike on the Muslim world."

Want to have a glimpse of some of the research and ideas that are emerging from universities and are about to enter the mainstream and shape our culture? Trying to have a better understanding of the current affairs of university life and the state of our higher education system? What does the future of college and higher education even look like? To get a look into the future we talk to university academics from some of the most prestigious institutions about their research, ideas and what we can expect in the future."

From The Rubin Report

The only thing that I disagree with Sam Harris and his critique about Islam that I’ve seen from him and I’ve only been following his blog for about a year now: “Is that the problem with the free speech debate about Islam, are Liberals.”

Who invented free speech? Liberals! You want to give me the classic vs modern liberal argument all you want. But the fact is Liberals gave us our free speech. Not God, not Conservatives, or anyone else, but Liberals.

You can’t be a Liberal if you don’t believe in free speech. It would be like being a pro-drug war, pro-preemptive war, anti-capitalist Libertarian. Liberals, are not the problem in the free speech debate about Islam and religion in general. The problem are leftist political correctness warriors, whether you want to call them Socialists, New Marxists. But people who believe minorities should be excluded from criticism.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, especially in the First Amendment does it give any class or group of Americans the right not to criticized. Actually, the opposite is true since we all have the right to say whatever we want to about everyone else, short of libeling and threatening people, or inciting violence. This comes from our liberal Freedom of Speech. The constitutional right for Americans to freely express themselves.

If you believe in political correctness, you believe in free speech for yourself and your faction. Just not for the opposition. So when a member from your team expresses them self in a way that offends the other side. That is free speech from your point of view.

But if the other side says something offensive about a group you care about, well that’s hate speech that must be shut down. According to a political correctness fascist. Which is what we’re talking about here. Free speech, where Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives are. Versus fascists on the Far-Left and Far-Right.

Do you believe in free speech, or not? If you do, I’ll suggest you are a Liberal. Especially if you believe free speech covers speech that may offend you, or you disagree with.

 If you believe in political correctness, or what I call at least collective speech, you’re not a Liberal. You’re probably someone who says it’s perfectly okay to critique Christian-Conservatives when they bash gays, women and Muslims. Because the person is probably correct and besides you’re just expressing your freedom of speech.

But if you make similar criticisms about Muslims, or people from Eastern religion’s who take the same positions against Muslims, you’re a racist, or some other type of bigot. Even though of course Islam is not race. Which hopefully Ben Affleck has figured out by now, but you might have to ask him that.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger.

NFL Network: NFL 1986- America's Game: 1986 New York Giants

Source:NFL Network- Lawrence Taylor (also known as LT) the great New York Giants linebacker.

“Story of the 86 Giants. Film by NFL Network America’s game. Super Bowl 1986 – New York Giants All rights reserved by National Football League. Posted for fans only.”

From NFL Network

"America's Game: 1986 New York Giants" 

Source:NFL Network- Bill Parcells: New York Giants head coach (1983-90)

From NFL Network

As someone who loves the Redskins and hates the New York Giants and if you’re familiar with that rivalry you know why, I have a lot of respect for the 1986 Giants.

They’re still one of the top 5-10 Super Bowl champions of all-time, but that is not why. They just represent exactly what NFL football should be. “We’re coming after you. Try to stop us.” It wasn’t this made for reality TV, or Hollywood nonsense where everything is perfectly designed like you’re trying to put a Broadway play together. With all sorts of sophisticated offenses and defenses. Actually, just sophisticated offense.

If Roger Goodell had his way, tackling might become illegal in the NFL today. The 86 Giants, represent the opposite of New School football. And they’re one of the best Old School NFL teams of all-time.

The 86 Giants, were a power-run ball-control team, that could basically tell the defense: “here we come, try to stop us.” And if you paid too much attention to their running game, quarterback Phil Simms would go play-action and hit tight end Marc Bavaro down the middle of the field. Or Stacy Robinson, Bobbie Johnson, or Lionel Manuel deep on the outside.

On defense, good luck running the ball against them. Because even though they played a 3-4, blocking nose tackle Jim Burt could be like blocking 2-3 men with one man. And then you got defensive end Leonard Marshall on one side and George Martin on the other. And if somehow you block those three guys, you got some guy named Lawrence Taylor coming off the edge. (Maybe you’re old enough to have heard of him) Carl Banks on the other side. Great against the run and pass. Harry Carson in the middle, again who could play the run, or pass.

The 86 Giants were, a classic Blue-Collar in your face, “try to remove us” football team. That represented Blue-Collar New York and North Jersey as well as the 85 Chicago Bears represented Chicago. They just came at you and dared you to even fight back, let alone try to kick their ass.

The Redskins had opportunities to actually beat them in the 86 NFC Championship and they got a break playing the undersize Denver Broncos, instead of the NFC tough Cleveland Browns. But the 86 Giants were the best team in the NFL on both sides of the ball that whole year. And played their best football in Super Bowl after dominating the NFC Playoffs. And are a team that unfortunately wouldn’t have sold too well with today’s NFL fans. That only seem to be interested in offense and pretty boys. But that team would still dominate today and are still the best Giants Super Bowl team of all-time. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Canan Dian: 'Christopher Buckley- Discusses Christopher Hitchens Life & Mortality'

Source:Can Dian- Christopher Buckley discuses Christopher Hitchens life and book and his book  Mortality' 2012.

“Christopher Buckley reviews “Mortality” by Christopher Hitchens”

From Can Dian

 What I like most about Christopher Hitchens is why he never would have made a very successful politician, because he has this big habit of always saying what he thought and what he knew. And he didn’t give a damn what others thought about it. His consistency for the most part and the on exception to that being how his national security and foreign policy views changed after 9/11, I believe are unparalleled.

Chris Hitchens wasn’t just an anti-Christian, or anti-Christian-Right radical on the Far-Left, but he was a true Atheist. He didn’t bash the Christian-Right for their positions on homosexuality, women’s place in the world, censorship, while he defended Muslims for believing that women and gays should be second-class citizens. He critiqued and attacked religious extremism wherever he saw it.

Politically, I’m not sure I have ever had much in common with Chris Hitchens. I’ve never been a Democratic Socialist, or a Neoconservative. I don’t know of many other people who’ve gone from one end to the other politically like that. But I’ve always respected his consistency especially with his Atheism.

If Hitchens was alive today would be treated like a bigot by the New-Left in America, similar to how Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, are now treated, as being anti-Muslim and anti-Middle Eastern and so-forth. He was anti-Muslim, but he was also anti-Christian and anti every other religion. He saw religion as a dangerous force in the world and with his new neoconservative leanings and perhaps would have if he could had religion outlawed in America. Not sure about that, but he was a true militant Atheist.

I believe political and current affairs writers should be judged on their ability to learn, grasp and to be consistent:

Do they say and write things that add up and where you could at least make a good case for their beliefs

Or do they just write for their team and over hype all the positive things about their side, while underplaying the low points of their side

And are they consistent, or do they contradict themselves. Do they bash religion, while only concentrating on one type of religion, or are they a true Atheist who doesn’t like religion in general. And will critique negative aspects of religion wherever they see it.

Do they bash big government on one side, while praising it on another, but without calling it big government.

Chris Hitchens, meets at least all of my standards as a great current affairs writer. Because he was someone who learned, who understood facts and made his arguments based on them. And adapted when he was wrong and because of these things and many others he’s still missed today and will be for a long time. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

 You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

Inside the NFL: 'Featuring the New Orleans Saints 12/10/87'

Source:HBO- Nick Buoniconti interviewing New Orleans Saints QB Bobby Hebert.

"The HBO series Inside The NFL comes to New Orleans, La. in December 1987 to highlight the 9-3 New Orleans Saints who are heading to the NFL post season playoffs for the first time in franchise history. Hosted by Nick Buoniconti and Len Dawson. Interviews include Buddy Diliberto, Bobby Hebert, Morten Andersen, Dave Waymer and Sam Mills. Cover Story features fishing with retired Saints running back Hokie Gajan, Stan Brock, Hoby Brenner and Ruben Mayes . Where Are They Now segment profiles LSU and Cincinnati Bengals legend Tommy Casanova." 

From Galaxies 352

The New Orleans Saints finally not just make the playoffs in 1987, but had their first winning season as well. But several of those players that played for the 87 Saints were also there before Jim Mora got there. Like their great outside rush end Rickey Jackson, their great inside linebacker Sam Mills, their great halfback Rueben Mays, safety Dave Waymer, tight end Hobey Brenner and many others. 

The Saints under Bum Phillips and later Jim Finks and Jim Mora, drafted very well for the Saints for about five years in the 1980s. What Jim Mora brought to the Saints was teaching them how to win. He won championships in the USFL with the Baltimore Stars and that is the only reason why he went to the NFL which was to win. But he inherited a talented team and added to that.

If you look at the Saints of the early 1980s and then later in the late eighties and early nineties, they were basically the same team on both sides of the ball as far as their philosophy, they were just better. They ran the ball real well and got big pass plays off of their running game and could put together long ball-control drives. 

The Saints defense could take away your running game and attack your quarterback with their 3-4 blitz pressure defense. Their 3-4 blitz defense was called the Dome Patrol, where you had Rickey Jackson on one side and Pat Swilling on the other side. Both linebackers the essentially the size of smaller defensive ends with great speed. Where you would need an offensive tackle to block them. And then your three down lineman are there to eat up blocks and space to free up your linebackers to rush the quarterback and attack the runners.

As I mentioned in the piece about the 1983 Saints, Jim Finks and Jim Mora, didn’t inherit a bad 2-14 football team. The were 5-11 in 85 and 7-9 in 86, the first season under Mora. Mora. They inherited good players on defense and offense and what he did with that was added to that and bring in more players on defense and offense, like quarterback Bobby Hebert, who gave them a consistent passing game. And wide receiver Eric Martin, who gave them a very good possession receiver on the outside with good speed. And then they had Dalton Hilliard to go with Rueben Mays in the backfield. 

It took the Saints 21 seasons to become winners, but it didn’t happen overnight. They were building their good team for several years and finally put it all together in 1987.