Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: John Micheltwait & Clark Judge: ‘The Conservative Ascendancy’

Source:Hoover Institution- author John Micheltwait.

Source:The FreeState 

“A half-century ago, the ideology of the American political establishment was liberal—the New Deal was still new and big government was getting bigger. Today, after a political revolution that began with Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, it may be argued that conservativism has become the dominant ideological force in American politics. But what does conservativism mean today? And if it is ascendant, how long can it remain so? Peter Robinson speaks with Clark S. Judge and John Micklethwait.” 

From Hoover Institution 

If you are going to use political labels, you need to use them correctly. I know I'm stubborn on this, but I hate hearing about how conservative someone is who bases if not their entire political ideology, on their fundamentalists views on religion and culture, as well as race and ethnicity and women's place in the world. 

I hate hearing about how liberal someone is, who believes there's no such thing as high taxes, regardless of how high they are and that there's basically nothing that government can't do for people and that masculinity is dangerous, European-Americans are essentially bad people, etc. 

What you get in this debate from the so-called Conservatives here, is that conservative is right and that liberal is left. That conservative represents America in America and liberal represents Britain and Europe in America ideologically. When the fact is, Conservatives and Liberals (at least in the classical, if not real sense) have a lot in common ideologically. They are both considered center-right in Europe and probably the rest of the developed world, at least outside of America. 

I agree with Perter Robinson, John Micheltwait, and Clark Judge, that America is essentially a center-right country. But you need to know what center-right is: 

Americans tend to believe in both personal and economic freedom, meaning property rights. 

Americans tend to love the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and all the individual rights that come with it, al those values being liberal values, like free speech, the right to self-defense, right to privacy, checks and balances, free press, property rights, federalism, equal rights, equal justice, etc. 

The reason why I say that Liberals and Conservatives aren't left and right, but both center-right, because they believe in the same constitutional and ideological values, at least when you look at what liberal and conservative is in the classical sense, which is the real sense with me. Liberal vs Conservative, is not hippie versus redneck, but instead Liberals tend to believe in progress and Conservatives tend to be a lot more methodical, before they decide to move forward.

Dave Warner: ‘A Moment With Pam Oliver (2006)

Source:Dave Warner- an excellent rear view of FOX Sports NFL reporter Pam Oliver.

Source:The Daily Post

“Dave from Dave’s Football Blog finds Fox Sports’ Pam Oliver in Charlotte for the Carolina Panthers v. New Orleans Saints game. Part 4 in a series.”

From Dave Warner  

“A Moment With Pam Oliver:” hum, maybe it was only a moment, because the guys shooting the video kept yelling out her name and how much they like her. Which might be why she moved away instead of having guys gawk at her indefinitely, as if she’s a professional model. And even though she definitely attractive enough to be a professional model, a supermodel even, that is not why she was at this event.

Source:Dave Warner- Fox Sports reporter Pam Oliver.

Pam Oliver was at this game to cover that event for Fox Sports, which she does a great job doing, which I’ll get into later. Something to think about especially for young men and have a tendency to freak out when they see a sexy woman, which Pam certainly is wearing tight outfits.

Speaking of Pam Oliver, not a fan of Fox, especially Fox News and not much of a fan of Fox Sports either other than their NFL coverage which tends to be pretty good. Their studio show and their number one announcing team with Joe Buck, Troy Aikman and yes Pam Oliver who their number one sideline reporter.

But I love Pam Oliver personally and physically. She does a great job for them and looks great doing it and is the best looking woman at Fox Sports and I believe their best reporter. And one of those reasons is because players and coaches want to talk to her. She asks tough questions, but she’s fair in doing that and is also great to look at. And you can talk to her without getting in trouble from your girlfriend of wife, because she’s a sideline reporter and not a fan or groupie or something.

NFL Films: 1981 New York Jets

Source:NFL Films- with a look at the 1981 New York Jets.

Source:The Daily Post 

“1981 New York Jets Team Season Highlights “Talk Of The Town”

From Sports Odyssey

Robert Altman: Nashville (1975)

Source:FURY- Hollywood Goddess Karen Black, singing in Nashville.

Source:The Daily Post

"Ce film raconte le destin de 24 personnages, issus de milieu musicaux ou politiques, qui vont se croiser dans la ville du disque et de la country, Nashville, Tennessee, au cours de cinq jours d'été au cœur des années 70." 

From FURY

"In 1975, Robert Altman debuted the crown jewel of his career: a gutsy, broad-scale cinematic portrait of a divided America set within the Country Music Capital of the World. Today, it might just be the greatest American film of all time. 

Source:Tribecafilm- The cast of Robert Altman's Nashville.

From Tribecafilm

The 1970s, really as a whole was one of the most divisive times for American politics. It was when whoever was left that actually trusted the U.S. Government to do the right thing and even tell them the truth, had ended.

You had the Vietnam War in the mid and late 1960s with President Lyndon Johnson. You had President Richard Nixon, who was stuck between wanting to get America the hell out of Vietnam and yet not actually be seen as losing the war. Sort of like a person stuck between wanting to kill someone and marrying them.

And then you had Watergate, with that, plus the other scandals of the Nixon White House, led the House of Representatives to vote for impeachment of President Nixon.

Without Vietnam and Watergate, Jimmy Carter remains a peanut brain, I mean peanut farmer from Georgia, who probably runs for and wins reelection as Governor of Georgia. America, especially after President Gerry Ford, who just happened to be President Nixon’s Vice President and personal friend, pardons Richard Nixon for his involvement in the Watergate coverup and all other crimes that President Nixon was involved in as President of the United States.

Congressional Democrats, in 1974, don’t win landslides in the House and Senate, because suddenly it just occurs to Americans that Republicans are devils and Democrats are saints. Democrats, won the 1974 Congressional mid-terms, because they weren’t Republicans.

There was this feeling in the America in the mid-1970s, especially as President Nixon resigns and gets the bailout of a lifetime and is pardoned by his Vice President, that the country was way off. Way off like a 747 yet without radar flying in the clouds in the Caribbean, with both pilots and the navigator, high, drunk and blind, all at the same time. And that it was time for America to get back on course and try something else. Try something that wasn’t a Democrat, or a Republican. Or at the very least not a Washington Democrat, or Republican. And I believe Nashville reflects those feelings of the country.

As far as this movie, it looks to me anyway like a two-hour forty-minute country music concert. Which would have been fine with me, if I were a country music fan. And it didn’t snow in Minnesota in January. Good luck seeing either. With some politics mixed in from time to time.

James Miller Center: President Gerald Ford: Address on Energy Policy (1975)

Source:James Miller Center- President Gerald R. Ford (Republican, Michigan) speaking about energy policy in 1975.

Source:The FreeState

"President Gerald Ford proposes ways to address the growing energy crises, and criticizes the Democratic-led Congress for refusing to let him move on energy reform.

May 27th, 1975" 

From the James Miller Center

"Gerald Ford

May 27, 1975

Source National Archives

President Ford addresses the American people to discuss his efforts to pass an energy policy bill. He points to a lack of cooperation by Congress to enact any legislation to make the United States less dependent on foreign oil, conserve energy, and increase domestic production. The President and Congres eventually reach an agreement in December 1975 with the passage of the Omnibus Energy Bill." 

From the James Miller Center

President Ford, showing a lot of leadership in 1975, taking on energy policy and even energy independence, figuring out that the energy shortages of the early and mid 1970s were bad for the economy as a whole. Not just energy production, as well as our foreign policy having to rely on other countries that aren’t very dependable, to provide a huge superpower with energy. And that if America could produce more energy on our own, it would benefit both our economy as well as foreign policy. 

The Great Deflation, is how you could sum up the American economy in the 1970s. Part of that having to do with the fact that even though America has about the most natural resources in the world, perhaps only Russia, has the ability to produce more energy for their own country than America and yet we were dependent on other countries for our energy supply. Because we haven’t up until lately, the last few years, done a very good job of developing all of our energy industries. Oil, gas, natural gas, nuclear, solar and wind. 

We produce all of these resources and have the ability to be leaders in all of these resources in the world and become energy independent. But haven’t done a very good job of moving these energy resources along.

Movieman Trailers: Escape From Alcatraz (1979) Starring Clint Eastwood

Source:Movieman Trailers- Clint Eastwood's Escape From Alcatraz.

Source:The Daily Post

“Escape from Alcatraz Trailer [HQ] No Copyright Infringement Intended.”

From Movieman Trailers 

If I had to put a short list, top 5-10 Clint Eastwood movies of all-time, (which are all great movies, by the way) Alcatraz would be on that list. Probably somewhere between 6-10, with Heartbreak Ridge and Thunderbolt and Lightfoot being at the top.

Escape From Alcatraz is of course about the 1962 escape of this famous prison by Frank Morris and two other career criminals that apparently no other prison in the country could hold. John Anglin and Clarence Anglin being the other two inmates. The movie shows how the inmates got out. The question did they survive and make it to San Francisco, or another island.

This movie also give viewers another look at Clint Eastwood who generally plays a no-nonsense, tough guy, who enforces the law and even uses controversial means to do that, but always gets the bad guy. In Alcatraz, he’s not only a bad guy, but he’s the chief bad guy that other bad guys look up to. He plays a criminal genius at least as far as IQ and intelligence in Frank Morris, who figures out how to escape from Alcatraz. And also happens to be friends in prison with two other men who are also experts in making prison escapes, the Anglin brothers.

Escape From Alcatraz not only shows you how these three inmates escaped from prison, but also gives you an inside look of what life inside of Alcatraz was for inmates and staff. How deadly boring it simply could be, unless you had a job as an inmate and how much time the inmates spent by themselves in individual cells. And what tactics, measures and extremes even the staff at Alcatraz would go to, to keep the prison secure. Like locking up inmates in solitary when they get into fights, but locking up in a completely dark dungeon twenty-four hours a day. And is very interesting and great movie.

CBS Sports: NBA 1986-WCF-Game 5-Houston Rockets @ Los Angeles Lakers: Intro

Source:CBS Sports- The NBA on CBS, with Tom Heinsohn and Dick Stockton.

Source:The Daily Post

"NBA on CBS Intro of the pivotal classic Game 5 between Rockets and Lakers in the 1986 NBA Western Conference Finals.

Announcers: Tom Heinsohn and Dick Stockton."

From Cool Blue Moon 

When the NBA was important and worth watching or at the very least at its best and perhaps the best major pro sports league in the world, it was on CBS. They had the best announcers, the best music, the best intros, and the NBA had the best players, coaches, teams, and fans.

Source:CBS Sports- The NBA on CBS.

I miss the old NBA intros on CBS with Dick Stocton. This was the NBA at its best when it was really about basketball and not about celebrity culture and NBA players just using their NBA careers to make as much money in and out of basketball. But when the NBA was actually about basketball and winning as much as possible. The NBA on CBS whether they had the best TV ratings or not and again they were dealing with a different more basketball oriented audience that truly loved the league and its history, was the best NBA show ever. At least as far as how they covered their games and the caliber of players and teams they featured.

As far as this game, the defending NBA Finals Champions Lakers were in a real must win. Win this game or go home, because they were down 3-1 to a team in the Rockets that was a good young team. But they really only had one great player in Hakeem Olajuwon. Ralph Sampson was a very talented center/power forward, but he was sort of work in progress who would look great at times and then would disappear. This was Hakeem’s team and they had solid players around him. Like Robert Reid and Rodney McCray, but Akeem and Sampson led this team, especially Hakeem. And when they played well, their teammates would play well as well. But this wasn’t a deep team as far as talent and great players.

The Rockets got hot in the Western Conference Playoffs on Akeem’s back . With their defense and rebounding and that is how they beat the Lakers. A team with three franchise players in Kareem, Magic and James Worthy. With great role players and a very good bench. As well as the best head coach in the league at least at this point in Pat Riley. But Akeem dominated them in the post. Because they needed Kareem to cover Ralph Sampson whose 7’4 in the post. Which meant covering Akeem who was a bull in the post at 6’11 250 pounds of muscle or whatever he was, with great quickness, footwork and athletic ability, with a power forward. Who wasn’t use to covering players that big and strong.

Adriana Misu: 'Truck Loaded With Timber- Headed by a Woman'

Source:Adriana Misu- Holy Mother Trucker, Batman! LOL

Source:The Daily Post

“Truck loaded with timber headed by a woman !!! ♥”

From Adriana Misu 

A mother trucker and not just any mother trucker, but a sexy mother trucker and athletic looking mother trucker who obviously keeps in shape and takes care of herself. I would imagine she would have to in order to drive as long and far as truck drivers have to and to be able to operate and take care of her truck. Which is also a lot of work just in itself.

Truck driving is sort of traditionally a male dominated industry and I imagine it still is, but like with motor bikers and western culture and business’s like ranches, you’re now seeing a lot of women working in those fields and doing those activities. And not just any women, but sexy healthy attractive women who do great jobs in these professions.

Moog Rogue: Mr. Conservative (2006) ‘Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican National Convention’

Source:Moog Rogue- the 1964 Republican National Convention, in hippie-leftist San Francisco. How times have changed.

Source:The FreeState

“Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican National Convention. From the documentary “Mr. Conservative: Goldwater On Goldwater” (2006)”

From Moog Rogue 

What sounded like an extreme statement in 1964 when America was still in the New Deal/Great Society Progressive Era of the Democratic Party, in a country that was just starting to move right, sounds like a very intelligent, logical, mainstream view today. Whether it was coming from the Right, because what Senator Goldwater was saying was what was called extremism back in the early and mid 1960s, was about individual freedom. And moving past the welfare state in America and giving more Americans individual freedom over their own lives.

And Senator Goldwater wasn’t just talking about economic freedom, but personal freedom as well. Which is why Ron Paul Libertarians like Barry Goldwater as well. And what he was also saying that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue, meaning that you are in favor justice and going to do what it takes to protect and advance justice in America. But you can’t get their with a half-hearted approach. That it has to be real and you have to go all the way.

The Republican Party certainly changed in 1964. They were still the civil rights party that President Johnson and the Democratic Leadership in Congress had to rely on their more progressive members in Congress for their votes. But you had this conservative libertarian faction in the party, that was already there, but now big enough where they became the mainstream faction of the party.

It would be nice to see the GOP today with there Northeastern Progressives and Conservative Libertarians in the Midwest and West without the Religious-Right. They would be a lot more competitive for the White House now.

Smithsonian Channel: 'Enemies Within Joe McCarthy- Spreading Lies and Ruining Lives'

Source:Smithsonian Channel- An Army-McCarthy hearing, from 1953-54. 

Source:The Daily Post

“Also known as “The Real American: Joe McCarthy”- The word McCarthyism has become synonymous with moral panic and any kind of resulting political witch hunt. The docudrama Enemies Within – Joe McCarthy attempts to separate the man from the myth and presents the first real comprehensive picture of one of the early “bad guys” of televised politics, his background and the political and cultural landscape that enabled his rise to power.

The film depicts the farmer’s son’s meteoric rise from freshman senator to televised “commie” hunting demagogue and finally, the lack of foresight that led him into the media circus of the “Army-McCarthy Hearings”. Blinded by his desire to be “the number one guy in Washington”, McCarthy took up misguided battles with the Army, the State Department, the CIA and even the President himself – until these forces, most notably the CIA, took active measures against him.

Following five years of extensive research through international archives, newly released material, including interviews with the last members of Joseph Raymond McCarthy’s family in his hometown of Appleton, Wisconsin, and a number of elite eyewitnesses and media historians, the film is a mixture of original footage, previously unseen archive photos / film, and dramatic original script brought to life.

Among others, names such as Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Pulitzer Prize winner Haynes Johnson, Conservative Best Seller Ann Coulter, Watergate Legend Ben Bradlee, and Ex-KGB general Oleg Kalugin lend their voices and unique insights to the rise and fall of a man who literally drank himself to death, only 2 years shy of his 50th birthday.

For the first time McCarthy’s former staff member James Juliana talks about his time with the Senator in an exclusive interview; former Harvard professor Leon Kamin reports on his experiences standing accused before the McCarthy committee as does writer and publisher Sol Stein, also a target of McCarthy’s accusations regarding his work for the Voice of America.”

From Docu Wiki

I’ve only seen certain parts of this film, but it looks very interesting from what I’ve seen. And about a very important part of the Twentieth Century. The 1940s and 50s where the fear of Communists and communism and even communists in the U.S. Government was real high. And Americans were actually worried about Communists taking over America. Which was never a real concern, considering how strong America was during the entire Cold War. And how weak are so-called Communist rivals were the whole time.

Especially the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China. Who were both just trying to keep up with America, especially from a military perspective and having as much if not more influence around the world as the United States. But neither Russia, or China has ever come close to matching our economic power around the world. And yes, the Soviet Union, was a great military power and even diplomatic power. But because of their Marxist state-control economic system, would’ve never been able to compete with America economically and even maintain their military power. And a big reason why the Soviet system collapsed when it did in 1991.

What Senator Joe McCarthy did in the 1950s, especially with his powerful position in the Senate as Chairman of the Government Oversight Committee and perhaps Congress as a whole, was to take advantage of the fears that too many Americans have about communism back then. And use those fears to try to further advance his political career and perhaps make a run for president himself in 1960. If not just further his political power and career in the Senate. Joe McCarthy, was the demagogue of demagogues. And hurt the lives of a lot of good Americans, simply because of who they may have associated with and their political beliefs. Which is un-American.

Johnny Cash: ‘I Walk the Line’

Source:Johnny Cash- He Walks The Line?

Source:The Daily Post 

“I found out no one made a one hour version of this song so I made one.”

From Bobby Forsee 

Johnny Cash singing about something he didn’t do very well, or at least very often. Which was walking the line and was someone who was unfaithful and didn’t play by all the rules at least. Not judging him based on that, other than to say he didn’t live the life he sung about. And at best lived a life that perhaps he wanted to and that others lived instead.

I think this is a very good song as far as the lyrics and the music to it and of course Johnny Cash with his great voice and that he was a great entertainer. But this song is not autobiographical at least in the sense that he was singing about himself. But perhaps singing about someone else and perhaps singing about someone he wanted to be instead.

C-SPAN: Book TV: 'Howard Zinn: A People's History of the United States (1999)'

Source:C-SPAN- author Howard Zinn talking about his book.

Source:The FreeState

"Mr. Zinn talked about his book, A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present, published by Harperperennial Library. He focused on his research for the book that spans American history from Christopher Columbus's arrival to an afterward on the Clinton presidency. He also stressed the importance of including the voices of blacks, women, American Indians, war resisters, and poor laborers of all nationalities into American history. After his prepared remarks he answered questions from the audience.

10/16/99" 

From The Ethan Was Here

"Howard Zinn (1922-2010) was a historian, playwright, and activist. He wrote the classic A People's History of the United States, "a brilliant and moving history of the American people from the point of view of those ... whose plight has been largely omitted from most histories" (Library Journal). The book, which has sold more than two million copies, has been featured on The Sopranos and Simpsons, and in the film Good Will Hunting. In 2009, History aired The People Speak, an acclaimed documentary co-directed by Zinn, based on A People's History and a companion volume, Voices of a People's History of the United States.

Zinn grew up in Brooklyn in a working-class, immigrant household. At 18 he became a shipyard worker and then flew bomber missions during World War II. These experiences helped shape his opposition to war and passion for history. After attending college under the GI Bill and earning a Ph.D. in history from Columbia, he taught at Spelman, where he became active in the civil rights movement. After being fired by Spelman for his support for student protesters, Zinn became a professor of Political Science at Boston University, were he taught until his retirement in 1988.

Zinn was the author of many books, including an autobiography, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train, the play Marx in Soho, and Passionate Declarations. He received the Lannan Foundation Literary Award for Nonfiction and the Eugene V. Debs award for his writing and political activism.

Photographer Photo Credit Name: Robert Birnbaum." 

Source:Amazon- Howard Zinn's book.

From Amazon

This photo is from the same 1999 book event that author Howard Zinn did about his book 'The People's History of the United States" but the video that this photo is from, is not currently available online right now.

Source:C-SPAN- author Howard Zinn talking about his book.

This sounds like a very far, or new-leftist take on American history and writing about it from Howard Zinn. I like his line though about that he’s interested in history, because he’s interested in the present, meaning he doesn’t learn about history simply because he wants to know what went on before he was lets say around, or too young to understand what was going on, or things happening in his time, but he wasn’t aware of them. Which is the same reasons why I’m interested in history. Yes, to know what happened in the past, but to also know what worked and what didn’t back then and what we should do differently in the future.

As far as Howard Zinn's title for his book: "The People's History of the United States" He's arguing that a lot of the history that has been written in America, was not just written by non-Caucasians, but written about non-Caucasians by non-Caucasians. So I guess what Zinn was trying to do with his book is to say this is the important history that was left out of our history books. This is the history book for everyone else.

Howard Zinn was arguing that a lot of our American history has been written about the American military and that our heroes have been military people for the most part and that they are all let's say Caucasian men and most of them Anglo-Saxon at that. That a lot of our history has not been written about African-Americans, or American Indians. (To use as examples) But there has been a lot of history written about the civil rights movement, as there should be. And lot of the leaders that have been written about were African-Americans. The famous and most important leader and hero of that era being Dr. Martin Luther King.

Howard Zinn, makes a good point about big government in America that is has always been here. I mean you could start with slavery and all the African slaves that this country held. Or forcing Americans Indians off their land so Europeans could live there. 

The early 20th Century of Jim Crow that prevented African-Americans from being able to go to good schools and even hold good jobs. Unless they owned their own business’s, but good luck doing that if you can’t get a loan from your bank, because of your race and color.

Where I differ from Howard Zinn is his point that America shouldn’t criticize other countries, because we aren’t perfect ourselves. That we can’t get on other countries human rights records, because we don’t have a perfect human rights records ourselves. Well, if perfection was the standard for criticism, no one and no other country would be able to criticize anyone for anything. And we would have a hard time improving ourselves, because people would always be telling us how great we are, or not say anything at all as far as what they think of us. Of course America is not perfect, but we’re a lot better than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and a lot of other authoritarian states.

Reason Party: James Baldwin vs William F. Buckley (1965)

Source:Reason Party- Conservative columnist William F. Buckley, debating author James Buckley, at Oxford, England in 1965.

Source:The Daily Post

“James Baldwin vs. William F. Buckley (Part 6)”

Bill Buckley seems to be trying to making the case that racial-discrimination isn’t the only problem in the African-American community. That they also face issues of personal responsibility like having kids out-of-wedlock, fathers leaving their kids and ending up in prison, not finishing school and so-forth. Which I actually agree with Buckley on, just as long as he’s saying that racial discrimination like being forced to go to inadequate schools, being denied loans, housing, employment, etc, simply because of your race, are also contributing factors the plight (lets say) of the African-American community. A community that was kidnapped, that was kidnapped from the very beginning and forced to live in America. 

You could have a community of Americans by race, or ethnicity, or whatever, that plays by all the rules, lives up to all of their responsibilities, that could still fail, if they’re not allowed to attend quality schools, have access to banking, loans, quality housing, employment, not because of their personal and professional qualifications, but because of their race and ethnicity. Things that have nothing to do with what kind of businessperson they would be, what kind of student they would be, what kind of employee they would be, what kind of resident they would be, etc. And that is the real crime of legal racial discrimination in America and Jim Crow. Whether it comes from the private, or public sectors.

NBC News: Meet The Press- U.S. Senator Robert Taft (1952)

Source:Guy John- U.S. Senator Robert Taft (Republican, Ohio) on NBC News Meet The Press, in 1952.

Source:The Daily Post 

“Meet The Press. January 20, 1952. NBC-TV net, WNBT-TV, New York City audio aircheck. Sponsored by: Revere Copper and Brass. The first question is, “You’re enemies say that in spite of all your disclaimers, you’re an isolationist at heart. Are you?” Robert Taft (Senator, Ohio), James Reston (The New York Times), Lawrence Spivak (Mercury Publications), Marshall McNeil (Scripps-Howard Newspapers), Ned Brooks (NBC commentator), Martha Rountree (moderator). 28:30. Audio condition: Excellent. Incomplete

“In the international field we have been victimized by such catch phrases as–“Making the world safe for democracy”, “One world or none”, “Freedom loving countries”‘ “the Four Freedoms”, “Human Rights” and a dozen others. ” – Frank E. Holman, 1953″

From Guy John 

America’s role in the world post-World War II and where is our place in the world and what we needed to do to defend ourselves and work with our allies so that Russia wouldn’t try to invade Europe and expand their Communist empire, is what they’re talking about here.

Senator Taft who truly was a Conservative Republican perhaps the Barry Goldwater of his time and the Barry Goldwater in Congress of his time, made a really interesting point about NATO which is responsible for defending Europe for the most part. And a position that I hold today about who should defend Europe.

Senator Taft wasn’t taking an isolationist position on foreign policy as it related to Europe. He wasn’t saying that if Russia invades Europe, then that is Europe’s business and America shouldn’t get involved. He was saying that if America is going to be part of NATO, then the European states that get most of the security and benefits from NATO should pay for that defense. Instead of America essentially being responsible for the entire defense of the United States, which twice the size of the European Union in land and have to defend Europe as well.

And Senator Taft was right then and he was right today. America is essentially responsible for the defense of both the United States and European Union. Canada can defend themselves and is now committing the resources to do that under the Harper Government. But while America is still at or around four-percent GDP as far as national defense, Europe is at around one-percent. With Britain, Germany and France being a bit higher than that.

One of the reasons why these social democracies in Europe spend so little on their national defense, is because they’re social democracies. They spend a lot on infrastructure and education and very little on defense. Because America is responsible for their defense.

Reason Party: James Baldwin vs William F. Buckley (1965) The Land of The Free?

Source:Reason Party- author James Baldwin debating William F. Buckley, at Oxford Union, in 1965.

Source:The Daily Post

"James Baldwin vs. William F. Buckley (Part 3)" 

From Reason Party

Back in the 1960s America was the land of the free the home of the brave. But for very few people with African-Americans being forced to essentially live in an authoritarian state. And live as servants to the majority of the population and not as free Americans. But where would America be without hundreds of years of free slave labor from the Africans that the European-Americans got by kidnapping them from Africa and brought over to America to work for free. It's one thing to pay illegal immigrants slave wages and pay them under the minimum wage. But that is still better than not being paid at all.

People especially on the Right in America always talk about wealth redistribution and transfers of wealth from wealthy people to the less-fortunate, as that is some type theft or something. But what about the hundreds of years of wealth redistribution that happened in North America from African’s to Europeans. Europeans living well and living wealthy and a big part of that having to do with the fact they got free labor from African slaves. That is the biggest redistribution from one people to another in American history.

This is not a debate about whether America is a great country or not, or what we stand for as a country and people is great or not. Probably only the Far-Left thinks we are not a great country with great people. And the Far-Right thinks that only they are great and represent the best of America. 

This is a debate between James Baldwin and William Buckley, about whether the principles of what America is supposed to stand for and what we represent, the basic idea of individual freedom and does that benefit everyone or not. And the answer to that is of course it doesn’t, because we have so many Americans who simply don’t live in freedom, but subsidize Americans who do.

Lana Turner Is Madame X (1966)

Source:Victor Creed- Lana Turner, is Madame X. 

Source:The Daily Post 

“Madame X (1966) – (Original Trailer)”

From Victor Creed

Lana Turner, plays a lower-class woman Holly Parker, who marries way up as far as class and wealth. She marries Clayton Anderson, from the very wealthy Anderson Family. Who is a businessman/politician whose held several Federal Government jobs and is looking to become President of the United States.

Clay Anderson is very similar to Joe Kennedy from the Kennedy Family. Who was a very successful investor on Wall Street. Who ends up working for President Franklin Roosevelt and who also has his own presidential ambitions.

Holly Parker’s husband, Clayton, is a diplomat now and spends a lot of time away from Washington where they live. Holly, gets lonely and is a gorgeous, sexy baby-faced woman (I mean, she is Lana Turner, after all) and meets a local playboy Phil Benton. ( Played by Ricardo Montalban ) They have an argument and fight one night at the house. And Holly, accidentally kills Phil and tells her mother in law about it. Her mother in law, doesn’t like her daughter in law at all.

Estelle Anderson, ( played by Constance Bennett ) the mother in law of Holly and mother of Clayton Anderson, doesn’t want to see any scandal and shame come to her family. And pays Holly a lot of money to get out-of-town and simply disappear. Not even telling her son Clayton who just happens to be Holly’s husband and the father their son. No one knows what happened to Holly except for Holly and Estelle. And Holly, completely falls off the map and leaves the country. And becomes an alcoholic and lives a rough life.

One of Lana Turner’s best movies. She plays a woman whose the wife of a rich successful politician. Whose suspected for murder and gets sent out-of-town by her mother in law never to be heard from again. Until one day she pops back up into society and ends up going on trial for murder with a completely new identity. With her family not knowing her real identity.

The Book Archive: Book TV's Afterwords-Sir David Frost: On The Frost Nixon Interviews 2007

Source:BookTV- Sir David Frost, being interviewed by Richard Nixon historian Tim Naftali, about his book Frsot/Nixon, in 2007.

Source:The FreeState

"In 1977 former President Richard Nixon sat down for a series of interviews with David Frost. The eleven sessions aired worldwide and included the former Presidents thoughts on topics ranging from Vietnam to Watergate. In "Frost/Nixon: Behind the Scenes of the Nixon Interviews" Sir David Frost recounts the preparation and execution required to produce the interviews and includes personal remembrances of his on and off camera conversations with President Nixon. David Frost discusses his book with Timothy Naftali, the director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum."

From BookTV

By 1977 Richard Nixon was a dead politician basically just looking to find relevancy again and get back on the national stage. He obviously was still alive physically, but his political career was dead and was a retired politician in his mid-sixties when even back then people with long public service careers in America were still working. Still holding a seat in public office, working in a cabinet, teaching somewhere, working as a consultant, like at a think tank. Perhaps writing a weekly column and hosting a radio show, or serving as an analyst for one of the network news divisions. Dick Nixon had none of that before the Frost/Nixon interviews.

As much as Americans and perhaps people around the world may have wanted to get inside of Dick Nixon’s head and hear what he thought about his own presidency and what was going on his own political mind and mind in general, Nixon needed for his own sake to get back on the national scene. To contribute to something that was seen as constructive, if not actually be doing these things. David Frost was essentially a news comedian and satirist at this point looking to get into hard news and make a name for himself there. And gets the idea about trying to interview the one man who no one has successfully interviewed. At least in a long time and find out what President Nixon went through as President.

What you get from the Frost/Nixon interviews is a look inside of perhaps the most fascinating American politician. At least in modern history, a man who was brilliant really about anything he ever worked on and yet had this other paranoid side about him that made him do horrible things to people. And to the country as far as he ran his own White House and perhaps administration overall. And these are really interviews that you need to see for yourself. But Frost someone who was a news satirist before he interviewed Nixon might have been the only man to get Nixon to open up the way he did. And actually talk about his own involvement and the Watergate coverup.

The Riverbends Channel: ‘James Baldwin Debates William F. Buckley (1965)’

Source:The Riverbends Channel- author James Baldwin debating William F. Buckley in 1965.

Source:The Daily Post 

“Historic debate between James Baldwin v. William F. Buckley Jr. at Cambridge University on the question: “Is the American Dream at the expense of the American Negro?

From the Riverbends Channel 

You won’t find better debates than this one, with so many intelligent, thoughtful, respectful people, a debate with both James Baldwin and William Buckley. In this debate, they are addressing the biggest issue of the 1960s, perhaps the biggest issue in the history of the United States, civil rights: should we treat all Americans regardless of race equally under the law?

As far as the debate goes, I believe the answer is obvious, that of course the American dream for Caucasian-Americans has been achieved at the expense of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to America and the Caribbean to serve Caucasians. Once the Africans were legally free from slavery and became Americans, Caucasians continued to live the American dream at the expense of African-Americans. 

The examples are obvious starting with slavery and then moving to segregation during which African-Americans were forced to live in inadequate ghetto housing and attend substandard schools. They had to settle for the only jobs they could get, such as house servants for upper and middle class Caucasian-American families, because they were denied the educational opportunities that would lead to well-paying jobs with good benefits.

KQED: James Baldwin- 'Who Is The Nigger?'

Source:KQED- Author James Baldwin, talking about the word nigger.

Source:The Daily Post

“A clip from, “Take this Hammer”… KQED’s mobile film unit follows author and activist James Baldwin in the spring of 1963, as he’s driven around San Francisco to meet with members of the local African-American community. Baldwin reflects on the racial inequality that African-Americans are forced to confront and at one point tries to lift the morale of a young man by expressing his conviction that: “There will be a Negro president of this country but it will not be the country that we are sitting in now.” 

From KQED 

James Baldwin was certainly not a nigger. Only ignorant people who do not know enough about the people they are afraid of regardless of race are niggers.

What I believe Baldwin’s point about nigger, a word I hate and not even comfortable writing, let alone saying, but what I think he was saying is that nigger was something that people who hate Africans and people of African descent call African people especially African-Americans.

Caucasian racists of European descent who are both ignorant and hateful of people with dark brown and black complexions that African people especially African-Americans tend to have.

Native-Africans just tend to have black skin unless they come from the Arab states in the North and people up there tend to look more Mediterranean decent. People with olive and brown complexions. Italians, Greeks, Southern Slavs, French, Spanish, Portuguese and so-forth.

Mysteries & Scandals: Lana Turner

Source:IMDB- Hollywood Babydoll Lana Turner in Madame X (1966)

Source:The Daily Post  

“What happened on that night in 1958 when Lana Turner’s mobster boyfriend, Johnny Stompanato was stabbed to death? Was she responsible or was it her teenage daughter, Cheryl Crane?

Edward Epstein (biographer), Jim Bacon (journalist), Willie Wilkerson (author), Del Armstrong (make-up artist), Cheryl Crane (daughter) and Glenn Rose (publicist) are interviewed about the career of Lana Turner.

Turner’s career is given a quick overview as we hear about how she was discovered and then we get into her most famous roles. However, if you’re a fan of the series then you know there has to be some sort of downfall and for Turner it was when her daughter murdered her gangster boyfriend. The interviews here are extremely good because they give plenty of details about the actual case and some of them were friends with Turner or were around when the events happened. We also get an interview with her daughter, which was entertaining. Fans of the series will certainly enjoy this…

From IMDB 

“Lana Turner Mysteries & Scandals -Documentary” 

Source:Know The History- Lana Turner's daughter Cheryl Crane.

From Know The History 

“Lana Turner Mysteries & Scandals. This is an E! production.” 

Source:Billy Estabrook- from the Mysteries and Scandals documentary of Lana Turner.

From Billy Estabrook 

Source:Alison Martino- Mysteries and Scandals: Lana Turner.

This I believe is the cover photo from E Entertainment’s Mysteries and Scandals documentary of Lana Turner from the 1990s. But the video that this photo is from is not currently available online.

I saw the movie The Bad and Beautiful from 1952 with Lana Turner, Kirk Douglas, Barry Sullivan, Walter Pidgeon and many others, a great cast. And in that movie Lana plays an actress who is very similar to the woman that Lana played in real-life. A talented, but tiny hot baby-face adorable woman, who is somewhat immature and never seems very happy, at least for long. Who seems to be addicted to scandal, who drinks too much and gets into trouble.

That is the Lana Turner that I’ve read and have heard about. The Bad and The Beautiful, could almost be a biography of Lana Tuner. At least her early career in Hollywood. Because the woman she plays there is very similar to the woman she was in real-life at the same time.

Lana seemed to be either addicted to danger and scandal in her life, or it just sticked to her like glue and she could never rip it off. Or perhaps he was addicted to Hollywood and the Hollywood life. Of living through tabloids and doing crazy things that get yourself in the tabloids and generate publicity about yourself. That leads to roles that clean up for to do them successfully.

Like Lana’s relationship with Italian gangster John Stompanato, who she must have known was with the Italian-American Mafia. This just goes to the crazy life aspect. (To almost paraphrase Paris Hilton) That a clean boyfriend and actor for Lana, would’ve been boring and perhaps anti-Hollywood to her. That Lana almost had to be in danger to be in happy in life.

Lana also knew that she had a daughter and how dangerous her and her daughter’s life was in being hooked up with a gangster. But that wasn’t enough for her not to get involved with him in the first place. How Stompanato died, I don’t think we’ll ever really know. Certainly not enough there to hold Lana for murder and Stompanato dying. I hate to say this, but it really wasn’t any bad news for anyone outside of his family, his real family that is.

But again Lana playing a Hollywood movie role, but her in real-life. With the only question being how did Stompanato die. Was is in self-defense or did Lana, or her daughter Cheryl murder him.

And this is all before you get to what really was a great career for Lana Turner. Imagine Marilyn Monroe, but someone who lived more than twice as long. A smaller even cuter Marilyn Monroe in Lana Turner, who managed to grow up in time to have what really was a great life and career. Where you’re talking about not just one of the best actress’s of her generation, but all-time. The same class as Rita Hayworth, Susan Hayward, Ava Turner, Lauren Bacall and many other great actress’s. In movies like The Bad and The Beautiful, Peyton Place, Madame X, Another Time Another Place, The Big Cube, Love Has Many Faces and I really could go on. But in interest of my own time I won’t.

The Johnny Stompanato relationship, is classic Lana Turner. She’s this hot baby-faced little cutie, who gets involved with an Italian gangster like Stompanato. Where just the fact that Lana is a woman and men shouldn’t attack women anyway and then add that he’s so much larger than this little cutie who at times at least could still come off as a little girl and all of these things means nothing to Stompanato. Who could probably kill people for giving them bad looks.

And Lana who was at time crazy as far as how she lived and perhaps wild would be more accurate, had to know Stompanato’s background going in. That he was clearly a dangerous man who had a temper. But again a relationship with a good man who stays out of trouble, would have been boring for Lana.

As far as what happened to Johnny Stompanato, which is what this show I guess is ultimately about, even though I’m more interested in Lana’s life and career. Lana or Cheryl, killed Stompanato, I don’t see how you can call this murder. Stompanato, was a mobster with a temper, who had a history of abusing Lana. And went too far one night with Lana’s daughter being there and either Lana or Cheryl, had the ability to defend themselves and back Stompanato off. And that’s exactly what did. Don’t believe either of them intentionally killed Stompanato. But in a lot of Stompanato cases the defender is simply just trying to back the attacker off. And perhaps shoots the person o hits them too hard. And the attacker dies as a result. And I believe that is what happened in this case.

California Newsreel: James Baldwin: ‘The Price of The Ticket’

Source:California Newsreel- James Baldwin: The Price of The Ticket.

Source:The Daily Post 

“James Baldwin (1924-1987) was at once a major twentieth century American author, a Civil Rights activist and, for two crucial decades, a prophetic voice calling Americans, Black and white, to confront their shared racial tragedy. James Baldwin: The Price of the Ticket captures on film the passionate intellect and courageous writing of a man who was born black, impoverished, gay and gifted. 

James Baldwin: The Price of the Ticket uses striking archival footage to evoke the atmosphere of Baldwin’s formative years – the Harlem of the 30s, his father’s fundamentalist church and the émigré demimonde of postwar Paris. Newsreel clips from the ’60’s record Baldwin’s running commentary on the drama of the Civil Rights movement. The film also explores his quiet retreats in Paris, the South of France, Istanbul and Switzerland – places where Baldwin was able to write away from the racial tensions of America. 

Writers Maya Angelou, Amiri Baraka, Ishmael Reed, William Styron and biographer David Leeming place Baldwin’s work in the African-American literary tradition – from slave narratives and black preaching to their own contemporary work. The film skillfully links excerpts from Baldwin’s major books – Go Tell it on the Mountain, Notes of a Native Son, Another Country, The Fire Next Time, Blues for Mister Charlie, If Beale Street Could Talk – to different stages in Black-white dialogue and conflict.

Towards the end of his life, as America turned its back on the challenge of racial justice, Baldwin became frustrated but rarely bitter. He kept writing and reaching in the strengthened belief that : “All men are brothers – That’s the bottom line.” 

From California Newsreel 

I think James Baldwin’s best statement in this video is that he wasn’t a member of a race or a religion or any group, that he was a human being. 

I imagine that is all James Baldwin wanted to be seen as and judged as, James Baldwin the person and perhaps who just happens to also be part of this group or these groups. 

Martin King’s’ dream was that he dreamed of a world where his children wouldn’t be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Or how I would put it and how I look at people as both a person and a Liberal, that I look at people as individuals first. And perhaps as members of groups second or even further down the line. But not as part of this race, ethnicity, religion or any other class that has nothing to do with how good of a person they are. And how they should be judged and treated in life.