Tania Ayde: 'Bugsy Siegel & The Flamingo Hotel'

Source:Tania Ayde- Jewish mobster and perhaps the creator of Las Vegas, Benjamin Bugsy Siegel.

Source:The Daily Post

"A film by Tania De La Cruz

Directed by Tania De La Cruz & David Villapando

Edited and Written by Tania De La Cruz

Interviews provided by:Biography. " 

From Tania Ayde 

Benjamin Bugsy Siegel was an interesting mobster. Italian, Irish or in Bugsy’s case Jewish, because he could’ve been anything he wanted to be. Because of his intelligence and charm. But because he lacked basic discipline and patience he went very far, but in a short time. But was only around for a short time. Being killed by the mob leadership in his early forties after being killed in his Los Angeles home by perhaps both the Italian and Jewish mafia’s and their leaderships. 

If you’re familiar with the film Bugsy from 1991, where Warren Beatty plays Bugsy Siegel, according to the film Bugsy’s bosses fly him back to Los Angeles from some supposed meeting. But the only meeting that Bugsy went to was his assassination, after the mob leadership decided that Bugsy was no longer worth the investment with all the money Bugsy spent to build the Las Vegas casinos and that even though Bugsy was very effective as a hitman for the Italian and Jewish mafias, as well as an enforcer, he was no longer worth the investment. Because of how bad a businessman he was. And that he needed to be taken out before he cost his bosses more money. 

Bugsy, again, had many good personal qualities about him. (Even for a murderer) But he lacked discipline and realism. He was too idealistic and too much of a dreamer, to survive as a mobster long-term. Whether you like it or not the Jewish and Italian Mafias’s, were business’s and didn’t want to associate with people who lost them money. Which is how they say Busgy in the end.

The mafia were worried that Bugsy would end up in prison or talking to police, or whatever. That he was too big of a gamble (even in Las Vegas) for them and needed to be dealt with. But without Bugsy Benjamin Siegel and Jimmy Hoffa, Las Vegas is not what it is today. A big vibrant city that it is in the Southwest and the entertainment capital of America. That is just a half-hour flight from Los Angeles. Where Americans all over the country go to everyday to have a good time. 

You take the criminal mindset away from Ben Siegel and you also discipline him without losing his imagination and vision, which is what created the Las Vegas that we know today and I think we’re talking about a brilliant businessman. But of course we’ll never know that.

NFL Films: NFL 1980-AFC Divisional-Oakland Raiders @ Cleveland Browns: Last Drive

Source:NFL Films- Raiders DB Mike Davis's famous game-winning INT.

Source:The Daily Post 

“Raiders at Browns 1980 playoffs" 

From John Morgami 

The Cleveland Browns of the late 1970s early 1980s were called the Cardiac Kids for a good reason. They trailed late in games a lot and many times by two scores and would have to either score once very quickly to win, or have to score twice with like five minutes left in the game. 

The Browns defense was not horrible and perhaps not even bad, but certainly not dominant which is what it became under Marty Shottenheimer in the mid and late 1980s. And as a result they would get into shootouts and when they play good teams with good defenses, would fall behind late and have to make great comebacks to win. 

The 1980 Raiders were a very good if not great all around football team. That could score a lot of points and simply shut teams downs. As they did in the AFC Playoffs and in the Super Bowl that season. The Browns were simply beaten by a better all around football team. 

I think Raiders offensive guard Gene Upshaw has the best quote about this game, or certainly about Raiders DB Mike Davis's game-winning INT against the Browns. He said when talking about Mike Davis's bad hands and inability to catch the ball: "Mike Davis, who couldn't catch a cold barefoot in the snow in Alaska, ends up making the game-winning play for us." 

CBS Sports: NBA 1980- NBA Finals-Game 5- Philadelphia 76ers @ Los Angeles Lakers: Julius vs Kareem

Source:CBS Sports- with coverage of the 1980 NBA Finals.

Source:The Daily Post 

“Kareem had 40 pts, 15 rebounds and 4 blocks. This is also the game where Kareem injured his ankle leaving the stage open for Magic in Game 6. The injury occurs at 3:40. Kareem comes back at the start of the fourth period and hits heroic shots to win the game. Magic’s performance might be the most memorable thing to come out of this series but equally, if nor more, impressive was Kareem’s dominance in the first five games. If not for those clutch shots, the Lakers probably wouldn’t have the 3-2 series lead which provided them the opportunity to knockout the Sixers in game 6.

Also included a couple of smooth Dr. J and Dawkins plays here.”

From Fish

I think Rod Hundley has the most interesting comment in this video. When Kareem Abdul-Jabbar goes down with the ankle injury and he says he doesn’t believe that Lakers can beat the 76ers without Kareem. Well, of course that is exactly what the Lakers did in game 6. They beat the 76ers without Kareem who was home with the ankle injury. Now, probably no one would’ve predicted that, but that’s exactly what happened.

6’9 Magic Johnson, whose a point guard normally, filled in for Kareem at center in game 6. And the Lakers win that game to clinch the 1980 NBA Finals. Now no one including Hot Rod knew how great of a player that Magic was at this point. And I’m not sure Magic didn’t either, in defense of Hot Rod.

As far as this game, the 76ers had no one who could defend Kareem. And most of the NBA didn’t either in 1980. And this Lakers team had so much talent around Kareem, including Magic, but Jamal Wilkes, Norm Nixon and others, that if you paid a lot of attention to Kareem, Kareem would set up his other teammates the whole game and the other players would’ve beaten the 76ers. The Lakers didn’t have anyone who could stop Julius Erving, but they had two or three guys who could cover The Doctor in stretches and make him work for his points: Jamal Wilkes, Michael Cooper and Magic, at different points of the game.

This was a great finals for several reasons. The two best players in the game at that time, Kareem and The Doctor. The two best teams in the league, 76ers and Lakers. And they both matched up well with each other. They had to cover each other and could make the other team work on offense and defense. Without any real weakness’s on other team. Other than the 76ers not having true quality starting center who played both ends of the court real well. Caldwell Jones was primarily a shot blocker and rebounder. Darryl Dawkins was primarily a scorer, but who wasn’t very consistent there. And that was the difference with Kareem being able to dominate either of the 76ers centers.

John Kass: ‘Will Tolerance For The Faithful Be Tolerated?’

Source:Chicago Tribune- columnist John Kass.

“With the issue of same-sex marriage argued before the Supreme Court and raging elsewhere in America, a question:

Is it possible to be a traditional Christian or Muslim or Orthodox Jew — and hold to one’s faith on what constitutes marriage — and not be considered a bigot?

And is faith now a problem to be overcome, first marginalized by the state and then contained, so as not to get in the way of great changes to come?

The issue of same-sex unions is by nature contentious and divisive. It is not merely about equal protection under the law, but redefining the foundation of our culture, which is the family itself.” 

From Real Clear Politics 

I already talked about this in my piece about what Jack Hunter wrote on so-called social conservatives, that you can see here:The FreeState. 

As I pointed out in that piece when it comes to Conservatives and conservatism, I guess it depends on what you mean by Conservative and conservatism. Conservative to me is about conserving. And when you’re talking about politics and government, a Conservative is someone who believes in conserving the U.S. Constitution for everyone. Not just Anglo-Saxons and perhaps other European-Americans, or just for Protestants, or just for straights, but everyone, including gays.

If you really are a Conservative, I don’t think the question shouldn’t be: “What’s the conservative position on same-sex-marriage?” The question should be: “What’s the Federal Government’s role if any here?”

Marriage has traditionally a state issue. I don’t think you change that because we now have states that recognize gays as Americans and human beings who have the same constitutional rights as everyone else and therefor it’s now time for Uncle Sam to step and just regulate marriage for the entire country, but perhaps other social issues that have traditionally been handled by the states. For the simple reason that we’re a Federal Republic that has sovereign states that get to regulate social policy within their own state.

Of course you can be a Conservative and say that same-sex-marriage is wrong and homosexuality is bad as a whole. But you can’t make a constitutional conservative case for the Federal Government stepping in and taking over functions that have always been left to the states. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Jack Hunter: ‘Libertarianism For Social Conservatives’

Source:The American Conservative- talk about your political odd couples: Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

“At the Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend, the nation’s largest annual gathering of conservatives, many speculated that the GOP might be veering in a more libertarian direction—or at least influential leaders within the party might be prodding it or might be anxious for it to go in that direction. The Daily Beast ran the headline “Libertarians run the show at CPAC.” In his CPAC speech, former presidential candidate Rick Santorum warned that conservatives should not surrender their principles, referring specifically to social issues.

Some on both the left and right perceive libertarianism as inherently hostile to social conservatism. Some libertarians even think this. This is not only a misperception, but flat out wrong—libertarianism offers social conservatives a better hope for success in our current political environment than the nationalist approach often favored by some social conservative leaders.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend, the nation’s largest annual gathering of conservatives, many speculated that the GOP might be veering in a more libertarian direction—or at least influential leaders within the party might be prodding it or might be anxious for it to go in that direction. The Daily Beast ran the headline “Libertarians run the show at CPAC.” In his CPAC speech, former presidential candidate Rick Santorum warned that conservatives should not surrender their principles, referring specifically to social issues.

Some on both the left and right perceive libertarianism as inherently hostile to social conservatism. Some libertarians even think this. This is not only a misperception, but flat out wrong—libertarianism offers social conservatives a better hope for success in our current political environment than the nationalist approach often favored by some social conservative leaders.

Part of the beauty of libertarianism is that you can be socially liberal or socially conservative and subscribe to the label. For the millions of social conservatives who constitute a significant base of the Republicans Party, embracing libertarianism is not an all-or-nothing question of accepting or rejecting deep convictions about life, traditional marriage, or drug regulation. It simply means rethinking the approach to these issues.

The distance between mere rhetoric and tangible success for social conservatives essentially comes down to this question: Does the federal government always have to become involved? Or should certain decisions be made at the state and local level, as the framers of the Constitution intended?

The protection of innocent life is the number one concern of millions of Americans in both parties. Most pro-lifers believe that Roe v. Wade was constitutionally unsound, and indeed, some pro-choice advocates even admit that the legal reasoning was flawed. Given the gravity of what’s at stake, it is understandable that many would demand federal protection of the unborn.” 

From The American Conservative 

I guess I’m just old fashion here, but when I think of the term conservative, I think of someone who believes in conserving. And when I think of conservative in a political and governmental sense, I think of someone who believes in conserving the U.S. Constitution. Not someone who wants to blow up the U.S. Constitution and our Federal Republic to advance some fundamentalist, religious and cultural agenda and try to stuff their fundamentalism on the rest of the country, with the force of Uncle Sam.

Jack Hunter’s best line in his column was: “The distance between mere rhetoric and tangible success for social conservatives essentially comes down to this question: Does the federal government always have to become involved? Or should certain decisions be made at the state and local level, as the framers of the Constitution intended?” I mean this is what this is about really, which is the role of the Federal Government.

If you really are an American Conservative, do you really believe it’s the role of Uncle Sam to decide social and cultural policy for the rest of the country, as if America is now the United Theocratic or Unitarian States of America and we’re no longer a Federal Republic with sovereign states?

Or do you believe in American traditionalism and are a traditionalist when it comes to culture and religion, but you also understand that America is a Federal Republic with a strong Constitution and there’s only so much for the Federal Government to do constitutionally. And therefor the states are better left to deal with social and cultural policy both constitutionally, but also in practicality, since they’re the folks who are closest to the people.

I don’t think this is a question of whether Conservatives should be opposed to same-sex-marriage, pornography, adultery, gambling, abortion, alcohol, tobacco, dancing, rock culture, hip hop culture, women working and managing and owning businesses, all issues that Rick Santorum and his supporters made part of his 2012 presidential campaign. I think the real question here is whose best to deal with these issues; the states and localities or Uncle Sam? If you are a Federalist and a Constitutionalist, I think the answer is obvious. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Mark Levin: ‘The Republican Party Is Going To Split, And There’s Going To Be Two Parties’

Source:Real Clear Politics- right-wing radio talk show host Mark Levin.

“MARK LEVIN: The autopsy report. They don’t even know how to name a report. The autopsy report. Here’s the deal, folks: Reince Priebus was ahead of the Republican National Committee when Romney lost. Why hasn’t he been fired? Why hasn’t he been fired? Karl Rove ran the biggest independent PAC in America, or one of them. He won 1.3% of his races. Why do people keep promoting him? On TV, donors, and so forth. These losers are not going to save the Republican party.

LEVIN: A year ago, a poll was done, it’s not every year, except this year so far, and I believe it’s Gallup, the political ideology of the American people. ‘While 47% of Americans continue to describe their views as conservative, 35% moderate, 21% liberal. For the third straight year, conservatives outnumber moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives. I’m giving you this information for a reason.

February, 1, 2013, Gallup did another poll of the individual states. Which ideology outnumbers which ideology in the states? Conservatives outnumber liberals in 47 out of the 50 states. So what’s the problem here? Well, the word conservative can be a little ambiguous. But what’s the real problem here? If you’re going into elections and your political party, where every survey and poll shows that Americans identify themselves more as conservatives than liberals, and you can’t beat Barack Obama, what’s the problem here?

The problem is execution. The problem is your being outworked, you’re being outsmarted. The problem is you’re not standing on “conservative principles.” You’re not believable. You’re not an alternative to Obama. You’re not an alternative to Pelosi and Reid. Less and less people view you that way. I mean, I’m amazed by this. When we look at the last thirty years, who was the most successful Republican president electorally? Ronald Reagan. Of course the times have changed, but the principles haven’t. Just apply them, wisely.

That’s like saying, ‘the times have changed, so our Constitution needs to be living and breathing.’ No it doesn’t! These principles are invaluable. These rights are inalienable. The fact that the modern politician in the Republican party is incapable of articulating them and applying them to modern society is the problem with that politician. The fact that the chairman of the Republican National Committee can’t do it and the Speaker can’t do is a problem with the Republican party and it’s leadership. And damn it, if it’s not changed, if these people aren’t thrown out, we’re going to lose. And the Republican party is going to split, and there’s going to be two parties. (Mark Levin Show, March 18, 2013)”

From Real Clear Politics 

I would argue that in actuality there is already two Republican Party’s in America or at least two political parties that call themselves the Republican Party. It’s just officially there’s just one Republican Party, but in all intense purposes it functions as two political parties but with two names. If you are dizzy now, I understand and I’m not insulted by that.

You have the Grand Ole Party which in my view is the conservative Republican Party made up of a very elite group of Americans that believes in old fashion values like intelligence, hard work, economic freedom, personal freedom, a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility. That’s what the Republican Party was up until the early 1990s when you saw the party split into two political parties ideologically: a Center-Right conservative and a right-wing populist party. And thanks to the Tea Party, the right-wing populists have a bigger role in the Republican Party, the dominant role in the party now.

What Mark Levin and others call Conservatives, are right-wing, religious and cultural populists, who interested in one’s and the country’s religious and cultural values, as well as lifestyle, and even to a certain extent their race and ethnicity, then what someone’s positions on economic and fiscal policy, national security, and the Constitution. You don’t have to be a believer in free trade, pluralism, economic freedom even, to be a member of the Republican Populists. You just have to share their religious and cultural values.

The Democratic Party is going through a similar split with their Center-Left led by Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and others, versus their left-wing led by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other left-wing Democrats in Congress. This can happen in a country of 320 million people that has in effect a two-party system where there are no other options for the hardcore political partisans, other than the two major political parties. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman- 'Why Capitalism is Best (1979)'

Source:Commonsense Capitalism- Economics Professor Milton Friedman, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1979.

"Milton Friedman On Why Capitalism is Best"  

From Commonsense Capitalism

Phil Donahue essentially trying to make the case that private enterprise and capitalism is somehow greedy and all the angels and unselfish people work for government, with the role of regulating how the rest of us live. 

With Professor Friedman making the sharp and quick response to that by boomeranging Mr. Donahue's point against him and rhetorically asking him: "Do you think Russia and China doesn't act on greed and aren't greedy." As well as asking him if he's aware of a successful society that doesn't act on greed. 

Webster's definition of greed: "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed" We all want more than we need in life (except for Angels and Saints) so we have security and not have to worry about how we're going to pay our bills and take care of our families. 

There can be too much of anything in life, as well as too little. But if you eliminate greed, you'll have a lot more poverty in America, as well as anywhere else, because you'll have fewer people wanting to be successful in life and getting the skills and knowledge to be successful, because they won't have that self-motivation to be secure and have more than they need to live well.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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