Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Johnny K: Janet Jackson's Scream & Rhythm Nation- From Sydney, Australia

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

Janet Jackson is simply one of if not the sexiest female performers live and in concert. Because she’s a not just a singer, but a performer who is also a great dancer. And then you combine that with her beautiful baby-face appearance and the great body and how well she shows off her body and I don’t know of a sexy performer right now. She is so professional and not just great onstage, but the work she does offstage to remain the great performer that she is.

If you have a front row seat to a Janet Jackson concert, that seat should be probably worth somewhere around a million dollars. Even if you are not a fan of her music and I like some her songs, but not all of them, but whatever she’s singing, she always looks great singing and performing because of talents and ability to both move and sing as a performer. And all the work that she does offstage to stay in the great shape she’s always been in.

Monday, September 29, 2014

Shawns Girl: Janet Jackson If, Scream & Rhythm Nation, From Sydney Australia

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal Plus

Just to speak very personally and frankly for a minute and then I’ll go back to being a distant liar. Ha, ha, but checking out Janet Jackson up close and personal, which was the title of this album, feels like a great Christmas gift. With that voice, that body, her in those tight Levis black denim jeans, the boots, that belt, the tight black t-shirt, makes me want to get down on my knees and thank God I’m a man. Or at the very least get down on my knees and scream, yes!!! At the top of my lungs.

Janet is one of the cutest, sexiest, sweetest, singers and performers you’ll ever see and she’s still only like forty-eight years old. Obviously not a little girl anymore, just with a face that makes her as cute as a little girl. And then you throw in that she’s a hell of a writer and singer who sings about her real life as a person and what is going on in the world around her. As attractive as she is. her professional talents as a dance, singer and writer or just as great.

Janet Jackson is not a one-hit wonder or a bimbo whose famous because of who her father is. And there are plenty of women and men who are and I’m sure you are already aware of this, unless you’ve grown up in Afghanistan or some place that is completely isolated from the world. There are plenty of people who are famous because of their parents. Janet comes from a great music family, but she’s been as successful as she’s been unlike some of her siblings because she’s a great talented performer.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Thom Hartmann: Video: The Great Debate About the Role of Government: Thom Hartmann vs. Michael Medved

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress, May, 2013

I think both Thom Hartmann and Michael Medved hit it on the head in their opening statements and perhaps the first and last times they’ll agree on anything in their lifetimes and they are about the same age. But they said it as well as it could that this debate is really about what the role of government should be in America. And they both said that the role of government should be about protecting our rights and that’s exactly what the role of government should be. 
So then the question should be what are our rights. And what Americans have the right to in America and the right to life is exactly that we as Americans have the. Right to our own lives and the right to live our own lives. Not run the lives of other Americans or harm or take the lives or run the lives of others. And that it’s the job of government to protect our right to live our own lives. Not to run our lives and try to protect us from ourselves or to try to say what’s good for us and what we should be doing with our own lives. But protect our right to live our own lives.
This means that we have the right to freedom, but not that freedom is given to us by government or anyone else, but that we have the right to get the freedom for ourselves to live our own lives and we have the right to live our own lives as long as we aren’t infringing on the rights of others who are innocent from, living their lives. In other words hurting innocent people.  
Where government comes in is to regulate how we interact with each other so we aren’t hurting innocent people. But not there to run our lives or protect us from ourselves and the other role of government is to create and keep up an environment where we all can use the freedom to live our own lives. And that means things like an effective and affordable infrastructure system. Universal access to quality education and a safety-net for people who fall through the cracks of the private enterprise system so we can get on our own feet and take care of ourselves.
That’s really the only right that Americans have the right to. Life and the right to live in freedom and live our own lives and. The only thing that government has is to protect out rights to life and freedom. And everything else that we get in life has nothing to do with our rights to those things that we get. But we get things based on what we do with the freedom that we have and the freedom that we have is based on what we do with the opportunities in front of us to live in freedom.

AlterNet: Opinion: Edward Harrison: A United States of Europe? What it Will Take to Save the Continent From an Economic Collapse

The European Union created the Euro currency in the late 1990s because at the time they were a continental union of 350M people or so. But weren’t one country that could respond as one to whatever the crisis’s or issues they were facing. They are basically the United Nations of Europe, but a lot more efficient and saw the power of the United States growing after the collapse of the Cold War and decided they need to move as well. 
Especially after the Soviet Union had collapsed in 1992 and China, India and Brazil emerging, with Japan still an economic power. And all of these countries are huge, with the smallest country being Japan 130M people. The largest country in the European Union in population is Germany 85M people at the time, but they are now down to 80M people. And were feeling a little overwhelmed with all these huge countries with all of their influence. And the EU being made up all of these mid size to big countries, but none of them with a lot of world power by themselves.
Thats why the European Union was put together sixty years ago. As a response to the power of the United States and Soviet Union. Because these Euro states knew that by themselves except for maybe the United Kingdom, they didn’t have much power on their own. But together and unified, when they agree, they feel they can match the power and influence of these world powers. Especially with the Russian Federation emerging again as both a military, but also an economic power. Thats now energy independent and with an economy thats just getting stronger. 
Russia is also  growing in influence, this is why the European Union was created and the European currency so these Euro states could have more influence in the World. On paper the European Union and Euro currency sound like good ideas. Unifying one huge market that's larger than the United States in population. And a Union of nothing but developed nations. And with four of the largest economies in the world. Britain, Germany, France and Italy. 
But again they aren’t one country, that can respond to different issues as they come up. Unlike one country with a federal government, they have to work together and be unified to make any decisions. But one country with a federal government, with an executive and legislative could do these things. And with power like that the EU could solve a lot of their problems. And meet their economic and fiscal issues in a more efficient way.
There are several reasons why we won’t see a United States of Europe. But we may see a United Federation or Federal States of Europe. And they have to do with ethnicity, language and culture, as well as nationality. This would easily be one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world with around 400M people. And would probably have the largest economy in the world. 
A brand new huge country without a majority ethnicity. Each state would have its own dominant ethnic group and language. But there are several reasons why Europe could unify. Again because they would be a major economic and world Power, that could defend themselves and dwarf Russia economically. All these States speak English at least as a 2nd Language. So they would have a unifying language that their federal government could work in as well.
I don’t see the United Kingdom ever becoming part of a Federal Europe. Too much ethnic and national pride in Britain, that already has four major ethnic groups. But the other countries from Portugal in the Southwest, to Italy in the Southeast, to South Ireland in the Northwest to Poland in the Northeast, could form a Federal Europe and all of these States could have one country. That could match these other World Powers in several areas.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

TruthOut: Opinion: CJ Polychroniou & Henry A. Giroux: The Specter of Authoritarianism & the Future of the Left

TruthOut: Opinion: CJ Polychroniou & Henry A. Giroux: The Specter of Authoritarianism & the Future of the Left

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress, September, 2013

I hate it when people regardless of their political affiliation regard the American Left as the Left. Because the Left in America is not just one, but several different political factions with different political philosophies who are yes on the Left-Wing, but differ from each other. On the Left you have Liberals such as myself on the Center-Left. Then move a little further you have Franklin Roosevelt New Deal Progressives. 

And then you go to the Far-Left and you have Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats. Who are democratic in nature, but have a very large role for the central government in the economy similar to Scandinavia. And would like to see America adapt their political systems and form of government as well. So talking about the future of the Left as if it is one united faction that looks at most of the issues the same way is like looking at the future of three football teams each having different players and coaches and philosophies that are all different from each other as if they are all part of the same team. 

It simply doesn’t work, but what can you do is talk about the future of liberalism, progressivism and socialism in America and see where those political factions are headed. And where they are strong and weakness’s of each philosophy and its members. Which is what I’m interested in as a Liberal especially since America is moving in a liberal direction and now wanting both a great deal of personal and economic freedom.

Americans who want both economic and personal freedom, but who don’t quite see themselves as Libertarians, people who do want government out of the economy all together, but just don’t want government trying to run their lives for them from either an economic or personal perspective, is good news for Liberals and Liberal Democrats. This is bad news for Democrats who have both paternalistic leanings as they relate to both economic and personal issues. 

The so-called Progressive nanny statists in the Democratic Party and outside of the Democratic Party the Mike Bloomberg supporters. As well as bad news for those on the Right nanny statists when it comes to homosexuality, gambling and marijuana. It is also bad news for security hawks who may not be that far to the Left or Right, but have big government leanings when it comes to privacy and the War on Terror. People like Joe Lieberman and unfortunately even to a certain extent Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The future of liberal Leftists or the liberal Left is very good because that is where the country is moving. Americans who are not anti-government, but do not want government to try to run our lives for us. Just protect us from predators who would harm us. And help out the less-fortunate and empower them to be able to take care of themselves.  

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Salon: Opinion: Michael Lind: "The South is Holding America Hostage": The Federal Republic is Still the Best Form of American Government

I seem to be writing a lot of responses lately to people who are on the lets say on the social democratic left in America who do not like our form of government to begin with because we are a federal republic. Instead of a unitary government where most of the power is centralized with the federal government. With states and local governments only being left to do what the feds allow them to do. 
The United Kingdom of Britain is a perfect example of a unitary government. And I believe they are paying a heavy price for that now. With Scotland looking to break away from Britain all together. And when Social Democrats get the opportunity to say "look-see, we told you that federalism doesn’t work and we need to become like Europe. And basically take their form of centralize government and apply that to the United States". 
Under a unitary governmental system, we would  basically only have states in name only. You try a system like that in America and you would see states looking to break away and not just in the South. But you would see states that are more open to a strong progressive or socialist form of government looking to break away because they would say "we do not need Washington telling us what we should do. We can run our own domestic affairs".
The latest thing that Social Democrats like Michael Lind and others are critiquing about federalism,who I do respect in Michael Lind’s case because you always know where he’s coming from and he can back up what he believes, but now they are using the government shutdown and Southern-Anglo (for the most part backlash) in the Tea Party a combo of Libertarians and Neo-Confederates, to say that "federalism doesn't work and we need a more centralize form of government". 
But today's Progressives who are really not lets say, but their point against federalism is that. "Look because these Neo-Confederates are in power in the House of Representatives and because of this they can keep the government shutdown by themselves even though they can’t reopen the government on their own". Are saying, "because of these Neo-Confederates we need to change our Constitution and nationalize our social insurance system and tell the states to sit down and shut up. Because Uncle Sammy is now completely in charge".
As I blogged just last night the problem with America is not our Constitution. Or our federal republican, (small r) form of government. American liberal democracy is not the problem with America, but some of our so-called public officials who are in office are. And we have a good way to deal with people who are not responsible enough to govern in America. Which is to fire them and even if we can’t defeat all the Neo-Confederates in the House of Representatives, we can defeat enough House Republicans to put power back in the hands of Democrats who not only know how to govern, but who want to and would govern responsibly.

TIME: Report: Catherine Meyer: Scotland's Vote Signals Big Change For the U.K.

TIME: Report: Catherine Meyer: Scotland's Vote Signals Big Change For the U.K. 

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Big change coming for Scotland and the broader United Kingdom indeed. And what is big change in Britain looks very mainstream in America. Just part of the political differences between the two country. The center-left in America looks like the center-right in Britain. And the far-left in America looks like the center-left in Britain. Just to give you an example, Britain is a hell of a lot more socialist than America as far as how the country operates and governs and the people in the country.

But what is big change or I would even call it radical change in Britain? Britain looks like it is headed to becoming a Federalist Union. Nothing new to America which is a Federal Republic. But you need to know that right now the United Kingdom has a unitary government centralized in London. Which is the complete opposite of federalism, which would be unitarianism. Yes Britain has what is called in America states. But they call them nations being England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland. The difference being their states and localities have their little say in how they govern themselves.

Where as in America everything that is not related foreign policy, national security and the currency, is essentially left for the states. Where they at least have the major role in how those issues are handled in their states though their governments. With the Federal Government in America dealing with interstate issues. Like criminals committing crimes in different states and interstate commerce, issues like that. To go along with foreign, policy, national security, terrorism and the currency.

So the big change that is coming to Britain, is that they will be moving from a very socialist big government unitarian centralized form of government in London, England, to a more decentralized spread out form of government. Where domestic power would be passed down to the state capitals and the people there and perhaps more power for the localities as well. A more liberal democratic power to the people form of government coming to Britain. At least how it looks now. 

Sunday, September 21, 2014

CBS Sports: Video: Pete Prisco & Pat Kirwan: Ravens vs. Cleveland Browns Preview

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I'm not ready to pick the Cleveland Browns to beat a very good team like the Ravens until they beat one. They haven't made the playoffs since 2002 and haven't had a winning season since 2007. Playing a team that won the Super Bowl just two years ago and will be a contender again this year, that for the most part has had its way against the Browns the last five years or so. The Ravens as Pat Kirwan has said have already lost a game in the division and can't afford to lose another one this early on. Especially to a team with question marks at QB with the passing game that hasn't done anything in a long time.

The Browns have solid running game and a good young defense. But that won't be enough against the Ravens defense that will attack the line of scrimmage to try to force the Browns to throw the ball. Which will play into the hands of the Ravens pass rushers. I think the Browns defense will keep them in the game and if they can get anything out of QB Brian Hoyer, they may have a shot. But I think the Ravens will have too much for them with a very good defense, as well as offense.

CBS Sports: Video: Pete Prisco & Pat Kirwan: Redskins at Philadelphia Eagles Preview

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The Philadelphia Eagles should be the favorite against the Redskins at home on Sunday. Defending NFC East champion playing against a team that finished in last place with a 3-13 record in 2013. That will be playing their backup QB in Kirk Cousins tomorrow. So that it the outside picture of that matchup looking in. But we are talking about a Redskins team that matches up very well with the Eagles especially offensively. The Eagles defense is weak against the run and gives up big pass plays. The Redskins play better offensively with Kirk Cousins than Robert Griffin at QB.

The Redskins defensively get after the quarterback and can do it with multiple people up front and are solid against the run at least so far. Not ready to pick the Redskins in this game, but they have the formula to beat the Eagles because of what they do on offense and how they play against the run and can get after the QB to make Eagles QB Nick Foles have a long day. If the Redskins take care of the ball, play their coverages and make their tackles, I could see them winning a very close game late in the fourth quarter.

Friday, September 19, 2014

Helmer Reenberg: Video: Senator Edward Kennedy Interview From 1964

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Senator Ted Kennedy talking about the optimism of his older brother President John Kennedy. President Kennedy's ability to inspire people and make them believe they can do things that they didn't think they could do before. Which to me at least is the definition of an inspirational leader. Generally someone doesn't need to be inspired to do things that they believe they can do and know they should do. Assuming they are responsible, because they just do those things.

President Kennedy inspired Americans to believe that we could put men on the moon and do it by the end of the 1960s, which is exactly what we did. That we didn't have to go to war with the Soviet Union at least in a physical way because our ideas and form of government based on federalism and individual freedom was better. That all Americans under law and the Constitution are created equal and based that are entitled to equal rights under the law. We lost an amazing and incredible leader in Jack Kennedy and is someone who hasn't been replaced since.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

The Boston Globe: Video: Ted Kennedy: Why do You Want to be President?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Anyone who doesn't know why they want to be President of the United States, should not run for President. It is too big of a job to have someone who hasn't put much if any thought into why they are running, or why they would be the best person for the job. Also anyone who doesn't want to be President, shouldn't run either because of all the work and sacrifices that go into to simply running for President let alone doing the job itself. Sacrifices that the candidate as well as their family make.

I believe Senator Ted Kennedy qualified for both when he was looking at a 1980 presidential bid against President Jimmy Carter who just happened to be from the same party the Democratic Party. He not only didn't know why he wanted to be President of the United States, because he didn't want the job in the first place. He felt some obligation to the Progressive Left in the Democratic Party to run for President against Jimmy Carter who was very vulnerable against the Republican Party for reelection. But also came from the center-left New Democratic wing of the party.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

American Throwback: Video: CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite, 1/22/73: SCOTUS Roe V. Wade Decision

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Roe V. Wade, the famous 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalize abortion for all American women, is certainly one of the most and important Supreme Court decision in American history. Because whatever your opinion on abortion, whether you believe in women's right to choose as I do as long as taxpayers aren't paying for that choice other than to save the health or life of the mother, or you believe abortion should be illegal, this is one of the most important and also divisive decisions. And put Americans on different sides and one of the first battles in the Culture War in America.

I'm not sure we have a Religious-Right and a neoconservative movement without Roe V. Wade. That movement still happens because there would've been some response in a big way to the Culture Revolution of the 1960s from the Right especially Far-Right that freed millions of Americans to be able to live their own lives and become part of American mainstream society. But Roe V. Wade was one of their biggest weapons and tools for fundraising and helped these religious and cultural groups on the Right have the resources to make their argument against abortion and other social issues.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Old Football Historian: Video: ESPN Films 30 For 30: Elway to Marino, the Story of the 1983 NFL Draft

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The 1983 NFL Draft is famous for several reasons, but a big one is the fact that it produced three Hall of Fame quarterbacks. The most important position in football, but more than that, it produced two of the top five quarterbacks of all- time in John Elway arguably the best all around quarterback of all-time and Dan Marino the best pure passer of all-time. Then you add Jim Kelly to the draft a quarterback who won four conference championships and played in four Super Bowls and. 

Jim Kelly one of the greatest winning quarterbacks of all-time and then you add Tony Eason who played in Super Bowl 20 with the New England Patriots, we haven’t seen another NFL Draft like that before or since, but a draft that produces not just two of the best quarterbacks of all-time and in Jim Kelly arguably three of the best quarterbacks of all-time but, also in Elway and Marino two of the best players of all-time as well which makes it an incredible draft.
But that’s not the whole story, this draft was also about workers rights. In this case football players do they have the right to decide who they work for and in this case who do they get to play football for and in John Elway’s case a California boy from Los Angeles who played college football at Stanford in the Bay Region, should he be forced to play football on the East Coast in Baltimore, Maryland for the Baltimore Colts. 
The Colts offered him a job, but the question posed by John Elway’s management team was. Can an employer force someone they’ve just offered a job to, to work for them or does the potential employee, in this case a football player have a say in who he works for and in this case play football for. And that’s what the Elway team was going to find out. Where are football players rights to decide where they can play football for. And Elway won in the fact that he wasn’t forced to work for the Colts. 
The whole draft brings up a more important point. What rights do workers including football players and pro sports athletes in general have in determining where they get to work. Because it’s really only pro sports where the franchises or employers basically have all of the power. As far as deciding who works for who and where with the players not having much if any say in deciding where. They work coming out of college.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Leonardo Nascrimento: Video: ESPN 30 for 30, The Band That Wouldn't Die: How NFL Football Came Back to Baltimore

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on Blogger

If you look back at the Baltimore Colts, their last few seasons, especially in the early 1980s, up until 1984, when they relocated to Indianapolis, it was very dark very gloomy. The team was bad and they weren't drawing, playing in an aging stadium, that was basically designed for baseball, where the Orioles play. Playing in a rough area in North Baltimore. I know, I went to Orioles games there and went to a Stallions game there as well. Like the stadium, as far as watching games there.

But Baltimore Memorial Stadium, it wasn't the right stadium for NFL football, as far as allowing a franchise to be profitable there. By 1984 when the Colts left, there were probably more reasons to not go to a Colts game, then there were reasons to go to a Colts game, to the point, that this is also an interesting story and I won't go very far into it but the Colts actually drafted John Elway in 1983. Elway being the smart guy from Stanford that he is, knew that the Colts by this point were one of the worst franchises in the NFL. Decided that he didn't want to be part of a long-term rebuilding project, especially for a team that might be relocating and told the Colts he wouldn't play for them.

The Colts traded John Elway to the Denver Broncos in 1983. Dan Reeves the Broncos head coach/general manager ends up getting a steal in this trade. The most talented QB in the NFL, on a team that was already a playoff contender, but as it so happens, the Broncos end up playing the Colts at Baltimore Memorial Stadium, week 1 of the 1983 NFL Season. Baseball is still going on at this point, the Orioles are still playing, so the football field, half of it is dirt, for the baseball field. (The other half is dirt for the football field also, ha ha)

Week 1 in Baltimore in September and in Maryland at this point its still summer time, a very hot humid day in Baltimore, temperature in the 90s, plus add on the humidity very common late Maryland summer weather and the Colts take their frustration out on John Elway, beat up the rookie QB, the whole game, pounding him into the hot dirt field the whole game. This one game in 1983 against the Broncos, sums up the state of the Colts at this point. After the Colts leave Baltimore in 1983, Baltimore football fans, had one goal and one mission at this point and only one mission.

Was to land another NFL franchise, to prove to the NFL they can support an NFL franchise, even if that means building a new stadium, which is what you see in the beautiful Ravens Stadium, that opened in 1998. Which is how they got the Baltimore Stars of the United States Football League and won the USFL Championship in 1985. With players like running back Kelvin Bryant who ended up playing for the Washington Redskins, how they were able to get NFL preseason games and draw big crowds for all of those games.

In the early 1990s, how they got so close to landing an NFL expansion franchise in 1993, with a plan for a new stadium. How they landed the Baltimore Stallions of the CFL in 1994 and won the Eastern Conference Championship in 1994 and the Grey Cup in 1995. And how they landed the Cleveland Browns in 1995 over to Baltimore for the start of the 1996 season and of course they became the Ravens.

If you want something bad enough, you basically have to do anything (you know thats legal and perhaps within in other limits) to get what you want, to show whoever you have to prove to, that you are not only willing, but able to support whatever transaction you are trying to land. Thats how Baltimore and the State of Maryland felt about pro football, they were pissed off over losing the Colts and decided to use that anger to get the Ravens.

Baltimore Colts Marching Band

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

CBS News: Video: Walter Cronkite's First CBS Evening Newscast

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

CBS News making history and for good reasons in 1963 with the first half-hour newscast. Which was a huge deal back in the early 1960s when TV networks were all about entertainment and sports, because that is where the money was back then. And whatever time they had left over and the minimal amount of time that the Federal Government required them to cover current affairs, meaning news, that is what they would dedicate to news coverage. Which back then was news in the morning and covering major events like press conferences, presidential speeches and political conventions.

Monday, September 8, 2014

Oak Park Studio: Video: CBS Evening News, Dan Rather-George H.W. Bush Tiff The Day After

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I haven't seen this video in about three years and I saw it then on YouTube. And if I heard anything about it as a kid in 1987 when this interview was conducted when I was 11-12 at the time, I don't remember. So I don't remember this interview very well to say the least, but a post about that interview and the interview itself will be on this blog in the future. What I can say about it is whatever you think of Dan Rather, the man was a tough hardball interviewer who liked to go after people in power. George H.W. Bush was Vice President of the United States at the time, so he obviously qualified.

Vice President George H.W. Bush

Saturday, September 6, 2014

CBS Sports: Video: Cincinnati Bengals at Ravens Preview

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

My only question about the 2014 Ravens is can they run the ball at all in 2014. And they'll get a very good test against a Cincinnati Bengals defense that has one of the better run defenses in the NFL. Ravens running back Brandon Pierce is now finally healthy and if he's anything like he was in 2012, that will be enough for the Ravens to run the ball and their offensive line is good enough to give Pierce enough running lanes. The Ravens passing game will be much better and I believe Joe Flacco who I have more confidence in than Andy Dalton, will be much better with a healthy Pierce, wide receivers Steve Smith and Torrey Smith (no relation, Smith is a very common name) and tight end Daniel Pitta.

If the Ravens were playing a great quarterback like Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, etc, with a lot of weapons around the QB, then I would be a lot more worried if I'm rooting for the Ravens in this game. But the Ravens have a very good defense that will be even better in 2014 because they are all healthy now and we should see a much better pass rush against Andy Dalton and the Bengals. Who are somewhat limited on offense once you get past EG Green. And I expect the Ravens to play very well especially at home, with their offense just scoring enough points to win.

CBS Sports: Video: Pete Prisco & Pat Kirwan: Redskins at Texans Preview

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I like the Redskins to beat the Houston Texans on Sunday and no not just because I'm a Redskins fan. Even with the shaky preseason that Redskins QB Robert Griffin had, he's still better than Texans QB Ryan Fitzpatrick who has made a career of not much more than turning the ball over, losing and moving on to another team. Which is what tends to happen to quarterbacks who turn the ball over a lot and lose a lot of games. The Redskins offense is obviously just not Griffin. Especially when you're talking about running back Alfred Morris, wide receivers Desean Jackson, Pierre Garcon, Santana Moss, tight Jordan Reed and others.

Defensively the Redskins will be much improved this year. Especially when it comes to tackling and rushing the quarterback and safety Ryan Clark to go along with Brandon Meriweather should make the Redskins secondary good enough to win in 2014. And Arian Foster will not be good enough to beat the Redskins by himself running the ball especially with the Redskins defense gaming to take him out of the game and force Ryan Fitzpatrick to beat them. The Texans defense is still very good, but their offense won't help them much and the Redskins have a better rounded team.

Friday, September 5, 2014

NFL Films: Johnny Unitas- The Master of the Quarterback Position

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal

When you talk about the greatest quarterbacks of all-time as well as greatest players of all- time who ever played, whether they are still playing, or not you have to talk about John Unitas as well or its a meaningless conversation. Because John Unitas changed the way the game was played and introduced things that were never done before. He called his own plays, was the field Coach, everyone on the Colts teams knew who was their most important player and the one guy they couldn't afford to lose, every team that played the Colts knew who was the one player that they couldn't let beat them.

Without Johnny Unitas, the Colts are a solid team perhaps a winning team but with Unitas the Colts were a championship contender from the mid 1950s until the early 70s, he was their Larry Bird or Earvin Johnson, Jim Brown whoever you want to put on that list. That one guy who was the Colts MVP every year he was there practically and a guy who could've won the NFL MVP almost every year he played, because he was that guy he was that great the difference in the Colts winning the Championship or being a mediocre team.

The only other two guys that I would compare to Unitas after he retired as as far as what they meant to their teams and how great they were would be, Joe Montana and John Elway. You take those two guys away from the San Francisco 49ers and Denver Broncos and you can make a very good case that both franchises are still looking for their first Super Bowl Championship.If you judge players by whether they were great or not and should be in the Hall of Fame or not, I have four standards that players have to pass just to be eligible with me.

Was the player one of the best players at his position during his career?

Was he one of the best players in the league during his career?

Would he be a great player in any era that he played and was he a great player based on the previous standards for a long enough period of time?

Typically great NFL Players play around 10-13 seasons. So for me, most players aren't great as soon as they walk in the league. They need about three seasons to see whether they can be a great player or not, sometimes longer then that. And a lot of great players aren't great towards the end of their career, Jim Brown would be an exception to that. So for me if a player is great 6-8 years lets say, as well as meeting the other standards I just laid out then they are a Hall of Famer as far as I'm concern. But John Unitas had all of that plus so much more. You're not going to find a tougher QB or a better QB in the clutch. Plus the fact that he was the Colts offensive coordinator on the field. He called their plays, he invented the Two Minute Drill and made fourth quarter comebacks popular and exciting.

John Unitas wasn't a QB but a great player who played QB. "What do I have to do to win the game". Thats all he cared about, if you took the lead late in the fourth quarter against the Colts in the fifties and sixties with Unitas, you were probably going to lose. Because now you have to face the master and you have to figure out how to defend one player with eleven and most teams couldn't do that. The New York Giants found that out the hard way in the 1958 NFL Championship. They tried to take away the pass and Unitas calls a trap play up the middle and Alan Ameche runs for 20 plus yards that put the Colts in field goal position. Which would've won the game in overtime. But they had Unitas and were thinking Touchdown and thats why the Colts won the most important game in NFL History.

Thursday, September 4, 2014

McCain Though X: Video: MSNBC's Hardball With Chris Matthews: Bill Maher on Sarah Palin & Michelle Bachmann: The Dumbing Down of American Politics

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on Blogger

I don't want to sound like a preacher because I'm completely unqualified to be one, which doesn't stop a lot of other people from preaching by the way. But it stops me from doing it, so one up for me but having said that I do like offering my views on everyday life. And when I see hypocrisy I like to jump on it, like an obese person at a free all you can eat buffet.

But Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann represent what happens when we as people put style over substance and give people attention, responsibility and allow them to run for public office because we like them, we think they are cool, (oh I'm sorry awesome) or they have a great sense of humor deliver a lot of great humor intentionally and unintentionally and I can give you a long list of people in both parties. So long that we would have to tear down almost every tree in the country, or at least in the Northwest to have enough paper to finish this list. But since this is about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann I'll start there and if I need more paper, I'll chop down a tree or save myself some time and buy some paper.

Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachamnn aren't political stars because of their great depth and intelligence on anything. Because they don't have any great depth or intelligence about anything. Sarah Palin didn't even know the role and responsibilities of the office she was running for back in 2008 when John McCain nominated here for Vice President. (Hint, hint pretty big clue there) Kinda like when you have a hot stove and instead of putting your hand on the hot stove to decide if its hot or not, you already know that its hot because you feel the hot air from it.

Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann are popular at least amongst the Far-Right in the Republican Party and outside of the party (at least amongst the Far-Right that doesn't see women as property), because they're likable, funny, attractive. And yes to use a word I try not to overuse, except when I'm impersonating valley people, awesome or at least considered awesome. Sarah Palin is famous because John McCain was scared to death about losing the presidential election in 2008.

Because Senator McCain was the Republican Leader replacing George W. Bush and had to have a running mate that the Republican Party would love and could appeal to the Far-Right and they either knew about Sarah Palin going in about how unqualified she was for any high Federal office. And figured they would try to teach her in the McCain Administration or perhaps nominate someone else for Vice President in 2012. Sorta how George H.W. Bush felt about then Senator Dan Quale in 1988. Or didn't do their homework about Palin at all and believed she was worth the risk. It was the ultimate riverboat gamble that blew up in their face, but they were probably going to lose anyway. Thats why Sarah Palin is famous in America and makes for great TV because she is very entertaining and attractive. Just not cut out for public office. 

Michelle Bachman is famous because she's the first mental patient to ever get elected to Congress, House or Senate and is very provocative, funny (sometimes intentional a lot of times not) and very attractive so she shows up well on TV and in public. But knows very little to anything about anything she's talking about and has a habit of attacking people based on quotes that were given to her. But then when's she's asked about where she got her info, she doesn't know because she didn't actually the read the info herself. Which is what happened when she got on Rick Perry about health care back in a Republican debate in September when GOV. Perry was the frontrunner.

Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann aren't famous and popular with their bases because of their intellect or depth on any on the important issues that we face as a country, but because they both make for great "reality TV" and both represent the dumbing down of American politics.

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

HBO: Video: George Carlin on Politicians

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStatesPlus on Blogger, December, 2011

America has Freedom of Speech and I love that, as long as we don't threaten, libel, harass people or yell fire in a movie theater. Perhaps you can yell fire at a ballpark or outside or even in your house though, but I wouldn't try that unless its the real thing, otherwise you might be asked the question. "What are you in for?" By a guy or girl named Bubba with hairy armpits and hasn't showered since they were a kid. And you may say, "uh I yelled fire in a crowded place and they might say I'm in for murdering a grandmother. So I can steal her food stamps", how small would you feel then.

I support Freedom of Speech as a Liberal of course even Freedom of Hate Speech, expression like for pornography and other adult activities. But two groups of people to me at least who don't get the right to complain, are people who didn't bother to vote. I mean if you don't do your part to make the system better, what the hell right do you have to complain about people who screwed up the system. The other people who I believe have no right to complain are people who spend too much money and then are disappointed about what they got for their money.

We get what we paid for, if you're cheap, chances are your not going to get much in return. If you're too generous chances are your not going to get enough back in what you invested. You have to know what your paying or voting for and then spend and vote for what's worth it to get what you want. I'll give you a few of examples and I apologize they are sports related, but I'll give you another example as well thats not.

Its like a general manager who spends 20M$ on a career backup quarterback to be his starter because that QB had one good season filling in for the starting QB, but then once they get to their new team they have a lousy season and the GM is thinking. "What 20M$ on a guy who completes 50% of his passes and throws more INT's then TD's and doesn't even finish the season because the backup QB is better. I could've paid the schmuck who played QB for me last year that money and gotten a better deal". Because you're paying for failure when you overpay and well my answer would be why the hell did you spend 20M$ on a guy who was a backup QB for 6-7 years. He was a backup that long because he wasn't good enough to start for the most part and got his one break and took advantage of it and took that to the bank, but then came back to reality.

Like a millionaire who has a horses face and then meets a hot women who just wants him for his money. And then leaves him once she has it or a big part of it. Another group of people who don't have a right to complain are sports fans that go and watch all of their teams games. Take Washington Redskins fans who have led the NFL in attendance the last ten years at least, but then these people have the guts to complain about how bad their team is. If you don't like them, stop giving them your money. Find something else to do with your time.

Another group of people that don't have a right to complain are voters who complain about the same politicians, but then keep sending them back to office, by doing that you're just encouraging more bad behavior. You're telling them "they must like the job I'm doing because they keep sending me back to office". As comedian George Carlin says, politicians come from the same places that we do. Have similar parents, families, schools, churches etc. If you don't like them, find someone who you like that will do a good job.

Make sure you do a good job researching that candidate, which will make you an educator voter. Which will make you a powerful voter, someone who won't put up with the same garbage as uneducated voters. Or run for office yourself. But don't complain, you only get what you voted and paid for.

HBO: Video: Real Time With Bill Maher: New Rule, Stupid People

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStatesPlus on Blogger

Bill Maher loves to make fun of the Christian Right, or does a damn good job of impersonating someone who loves to make fun of the Christian Right, so good he should win an Oscar. Why not they are big easy target, kinda like aiming at an ocean from a beach. So why not shoot, instead of comedians and bloggers actually sitting down and putting their hand to their chin and going "hum what should I write about now". How about just listen to ignorant people talk and make fun of them instead. Thats what I always say anyway, or just said it actually thats the first time I just said that, but who's counting, well I guess I just did.

I mean think about who's easier to make fun of then ignorant people, especially when they're in charge like I don't know in the White House, or Congress.

Examples of doing dumb things-

Sending the country to war based on false intelligence to use as an example. Trying to link Iraq with Al -Quada, which is like trying to link a prostitute with the Southern Baptist Convention. They don't go together, sure there are Southern Baptists that like Prostitutes, but they generally don't go together. Or trying to link homosexuality with the 9/11 Attacks. If these people weren't so stupid, I might be mad at them just because of their hate. But since they are so stupid, its hard for me not to feel anything, but sorry for them. They are victims of our public education system and not being raised right.

And because of this, the rest of society gets to laugh at them and put up with them. Here's another one, Catholics can't go to heaven because they aren't Baptist. Isn't Heaven meant for good people. When we don't raise our kids right, or make sure they get a good education, they suffer the consequences of that of course. And a lot of them end up in our criminal justice system generally as guests. But the rest of society, sure gets some new easy big targets to shoot at, like a blimp over a stadium. (In other words Rush Limbaugh) But we have to deal with their stupidity, their lack of intelligence. Like what we had on Iraq before we went to war. Especially when they are pressured to run for high office to help their party. Because of their name recognition and who their father is and they end up having to make decisions.

The presidency isn't  ignorant politicians, or it sure as hell shouldn't be.  Can you imagine what it must of been like for Condolezza Rice to explain intelligence reports to George W. Bush. She must of had to use drawings or try to compare military combat with football games or something. This whole idea, or attacking another country because they may attack you in the future. First of all our national defense is so strong that would never happen. Because any foreign fighter plane or planes or warships that attempted to invade the United States because of our radar system would first be warned before they got close or could launch an attack. And then we could blow them away as well. The rest of the world knows this, which is why we haven't been attacked by a foreign military inside America since 1941.

Ignorant people on the Far-Right and Far-Left are fun to make fun of, lets just admit that. We can't or shouldn't be nice to everyone. For every Saint that we have, we need a few (pardon the term) assholes to keep it real. So most of the country can stay within striking distance of reality. (When they aren't high) But we need to remember that we pay a price for ignorance as a country, especially when it reaches high office. Because we as a country or state lets say, have together paid a price for their stupid decisions. So lets do our part to prevent as many future ignorant people in the future as we can.