The New Democrat Online

Life is a Highway

Life is a Highway
Source: QuoteAddicts.com

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

DW-TV: Claudia Kleinert- Gorgeous Sexy Meteorologist


Source: DW-TV-Claudia Kleinert-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press Plus

Love Claudia Kleinert period at least from what I've seen from her on YouTube. Great voice whether she's speaking German or English and great face as well. She actually makes the weather seem interesting to listen to. Which couldn't be a small task, because that would probably be like making listening to someone read from a phonebook interesting. But I believe similar to actress's Kim Novak and Angie Dickinson, just because of their delivery, they can make mediocre scripts sound great just because of how they deliver them. Simply because of their delivery.

But that is just how she sounds and does the weather. Throw in the skinny denim jeans in the black leather boots and she got this gorgeous sexy goddess with the body as well in that great outfit and it is just a lot of extra icing on a very large cake. A gorgeous sexy well-built women, which is very common in Germany and with German women around the world regardless of country. And she makes listening weather anything but like listening to a roll call in Congress, or someone reading from a phonebook. 
DW-TV: Claudia Kleinert- Das Wetter Fur Berlin und Brandenburg- 12/27/2011




Thursday, December 1, 2011

David Rosman: U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy and Reverend Jerry Falwell- Liberty Baptist College 1983

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState: David Rosman: U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy and Reverend Jerry Falwell- Liberty Baptist College 1983

Senator Ted Kennedy, would be one of the few Northeastern Progressive Democrats that could give a speech at a Southern Evangelical university like Liberty University. Because Senator Kennedy was someone who could work outside of his element. Especially when he didn’t have enough power to get everything he wanted on an issue. Because he was a legislature before he was a politician. Which is why you see Senator Kennedy on the same stage not debating with Reverend Jerry Falwell, one of the fathers of the Religious-Right in America. And they make about as odd of a couple as Reverend Jesse Jackson giving a speech at a KKK rally. Something just seems odd about it.

But you have to remember that two of Senator Kennedy’s best friends in Congress were Senator Orrin Hatch and John Boehner now Speaker of the House. Two of the most Conservative Republicans in Congress. But Senator Kennedy was one of the best speakers when it came to truth and tolerance and civil rights in America. You don’t have the legislative record in Congress as a Senator, without the ability to not only work with your colleagues in the Senate and people in your party, but you also have to not only be able to work with Senator’s from the other party, but people in the House of Representatives as well. At least in your own party if your party is in the majority there. Ted Kennedy, understood all of that.

Perhaps not as articulate as Lyndon Johnson, Martin King or Bill Clinton, but you knew when Ted Kennedy spoke about those issues, that he was speaking from his heart that these were issues that really believed in. Which is why Senator Kennedy always had one of the best civil rights records in Congress. And Senator Kennedy’s contribution to the immigration reform debate in 2006-07, is a perfect example of that. Truth and tolerance and civil rights, are just as important as they were in 1983 84 when this speech was given, as it is today. To speak what’s on your mind and tell the truth and what you really believe.

Tolerance and cooperation, is something we didn’t have enough in politics and the rest of the country back then. But at least in the 1980s both parties believed in government and governing. And were smart enough to know they had to work with the other party in order to govern. Now it’s about how do you make the other side look bad so you can score politically. And that has just gotten worst today. Tolerance, treat people as you would want to be treated. Until they’ve proven they’re not worthy of your respect. And judge people by the content of the character, not by the color of their skin. Or the shape of their face or style of their hair or any other thing that has to do with their race or ethnicity.

Don’t judge people by their name, or what religion they practice if any, what gender they are attracted to physically and so on. That we treat people as people not groups. We don’t treat people special because they are a member of a group, good or bad. That we judge all people as people not members of groups. Which is something that Senator Kennedy understood very well for the most part. And is something that as we become even more diverse as a country is a message that needs to be understood and communicated even more today. Seeing Ted Kennedy with Jerry Falwell on the same stage not debating each other and actually being nice to each other.

Ted Kennedy and Jerry Falwell, were the definition of Odd Couple. Perhaps they could’ve had their own sitcom. Like the Irish Baptist, or Out of Place or something like that, Strange Bedfellows. Except they would both be straight. Jerry Falwell getting on Ted Kennedy for falling off bar stools and Ted Kennedy getting on the Reverend for preaching to the choir in their living room, literally as he’s trying to sleep. An Odd Couple that could get along.But even people who are clearly opponents when it comes to politics and have to defeat other side to accomplish their goals, can get along with each other. If they understand that they’re opponents and not enemies that are always in combat seeking to destroy the other side.

Monday, November 21, 2011

Frozen Feet Films: Fritz: The Walter Mondale Story

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState: Frozen Feet Films: Fritz: The Walter Mondale Story

Walter Mondale to me is someone who was ahead of his time, the way all Vice Presidents since are judged. Because he was the first Vice President with real authority or at least the first since Richard Nixon. But Vice President Mondale designed how the Vice Presidents Office looks today, serving as the Presidents Chief Counsel on Policy and perhaps even politics as well. As well as basically the Chief Operating Officer of the Administration. Something he, Vice President Bush, Vice President Gore, Vice President Cheney and Vice President Biden all have done well. Pre-Walter Mondale except maybe for Vice President Nixon, the Office of the Vice President was basically ceremonial. Counting the days to when their term was over or when it’s time to campaign again or they would preside over the U.S. Senate. When Congress was in session, it wasn’t a very important office.

Today the Vice Presidency is important. When instead of the Vice President presiding over the Senate, they are basically the President’s Chief Representative to Congress. As well as their other duties at the White House. And Vice President Mondale made that office definite. He worked out an agreement with Jimmy Carter when they ran together in 1976, that if he was to be Carter’s Vice President, that he would have to have real responsibility in that office. The Vice President under the U.S. Constitution, is the first officer in the Federal Government. Only the President out ranks him. And that’s how it was in the Cater Administration, except it was no longer just on paper, but in practice as well.

The Carter-Mondale ticket in 1976, worked very well because they both had what the other didn’t have. Jimmy Carter was the Governor of Georgia and ran a major administration there. But had no Federal Government and foreign policy experience other than his time in the Navy in World War II. Senator Walter Mondale had been in Congress for twelve years, but was never governor and never ran a government. Carter was from the South, Mondale was from the Midwest. Carter was an outsider, but with strong civil rights credentials and Mondale had strong ties to the Democratic establishment. With organized labor and the civil rights movement. They are both very intelligent and very good men.

Carter-Mondale, complemented each other very well, similar to Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1992. The Democratic Party was somewhat concern about Jimmy Carter’s progressive credentials, but with Fritz Mondale on the ticket, they were able to get past that. Because Senator Mondale had a long progressive record. We’ll see what Vice President Biden’s record looks like when he leaves that office. (Hopefully in five years) But as far as I’m concern Al Gore and Fritz Mondale are the two best Vice President’s we’ve ever had and I would lead towards Vice President Gore. Because he helped run one of the most successful administration’s we’ve ever had.

Fritz Mondale to me represents exactly what a public servant should be. He was a politician in the best sense of the word, because he separated politics from public office. Politics was for campaigning and public office was about governing. And had he not run for President in 1984 against Ronald Reagan, when the economy was doing well and just four years after the Carter Administration, which was very unpopular, maybe Vice President Mondale becomes President Mondale. But Fritz Mondale was a victim of his times, but becoming President was also not what public service was about for him either. But serving the public was.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Passionate Patriots: 1960 DNC: JFK Teams Up With Rival LBJ- Leadership For The 1960s

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState: Passionate Patriots: 1960 DNC: JFK Teams Up With Rival LBJ- Leadership For The 1960s

1960 was the last presidential election where a Vice Presidential nomination was the difference in who was elected President. Because Jack Kennedy already had the votes of the Liberal and Progressive Democrats. Especially in the North who could care less about Senator Kennedy being an Irish Catholic Northeastern Liberal from Massachusetts. But because of those factors Southern Democrats who are Conservative Republicans today, weren't convinced that Jack Kennedy was acceptable enough to be President of the United States. Which is why Lyndon Johnson who was also the Leader of the Senate at the time. Was so critical to this ticket, because he was a Southern Democrat at least regionally.

But LBJ had  progressive leanings like on civil rights to use as an example. But didn't push those positions much in the Senate except in 1957, when Leader Johnson was already considering running for President. When he pushed through a civil rights bill in the Senate, but that was voluntary. Because Johnson knew that he would need Northern Liberals to win the Democratic nomination for President. So Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson needed each other or people like the other one in order to win the presidential election. Kennedy needed a Southern Democrat as powerful as Johnson, but there weren't any Democrats as powerful as Johnson at the time. And had Johnson won the Democratic nomination and he got real close, he would've had to of selected a Northern Liberal like Jack Kennedy as his Vice President.

With the Kennedy-Johnson ticket, this meant Democrats could win both the Northeast and South, as well as California. Because Kennedy could work the liberal states and Johnson could work the Southern states. Because the Northeast was probably going to vote for Kennedy anyway, but with Johnson on the ticket, Johnson could convince Southern Democrats that an Irish Catholic Northeastern Liberal was acceptable enough to be President of the United States. And Senator Kennedy's speech to Southern Baptists in 1960 in Houston where he came out for being in favor of Separation of Church and State and that he wouldn't take orders from the Pope in policy and decision-making.

In some ways Democrats in 1960 had a dream ticket, with the future of the Democratic Party. A real superstar in the best sense of the word, not a flash in the pan running with the most powerful Democrat in the country. Someone who was more than qualified to be President of the United States 1960. This not the last or first presidential election where the Vice Presidential nominee was important. It was also important in 1952 with Richard Nixon, 1976 with Walter Mondale, 1980 with George Bush, 1992 with Al Gore, 2000 with Dick Cheney, 2008 with Joe Biden. But 1960 was the last one where the VP nominee was able to deliver votes and states for the ticket.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

VOA News: Jim Bertel-U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy Dead at 77: The Dream Shall Never Die

The Progressive Standard-
This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState: VOA News: Jim Bertel-U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy Dead at 77: The Dream Shall Never Die

When I think of the late Senator Ted Kennedy Edward M. Kennedy, I think of someone who represents the heart of the Democratic Party. Someone who represents the best of the Democratic Party as far as the things that we as Democrats have fought for going back at least to the 1930s or longer. Individual liberty, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, equality of opportunity for all, civil rights for all, workers rights, the little people, health care and health insurance for everybody. Retirement security for everybody, a foreign policy that represents the best of America. Basically a quality shot at the American Dream for everyone. Now we as Democrats don’t always agree on how to accomplish these things.

Democrats tend to have the same goals, but differ in how to accomplish those goals. Some times we don’t agree on any of those things as far how to accomplish them. We’ve always been a very diverse party. Politically, racially, different ethnicity’s and everything else. We are basically a political party of three different parties in one. And that’s what happens when you have a two-party System in a country as large and as diverse as we are. But it’s that progressive agenda of the party that brings us together when we come together. And a lot of that credit goes to Senator Ted Kennedy who’s been the heart of the Democratic Party at least since 1980. When he unsuccessfully ran for President in 1980 and sort of took that mantle from Lyndon Johnson. When he left the White House in 1969 and when his brother Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in 1968.

Ted Kennedy didn’t represent the Democratic agenda as far as exactly what the policy’s would look like. Which is what Ron Reagan did for the Republican Party. he represented their agenda as well as policy’s. Even though Senator Kennedy had his own policy’s for all the key issues he cared about. The Democratic Leadership or the party as a whole, wasn’t always behind the bills that Senator Kennedy wrote. But they shared the same goals on a lot of bills that Senator Kennedy got passed out of Congress. He did that by working with the Democratic Leadership, Senate Republicans like Orrin Hatch, Bob Dole, John Chaffee, Arlen Spector and others. And then working out a compromise with the House whichever party was in charge.

Senator Kennedy, was also good at working out agreements with the White House. This is how legislating works in Washington and Senator Kennedy is about as good or the best legislature we’ve ever produced. But Ted Kennedy has been a big reason why the Democratic agenda has always been the same for the last 45-50 years. And a big reason why they’ve been able to pass a lot of that agenda, including health care reform which they passed in 2010. And still serves as the inspiration for the Democratic Party today. If the United States had a system where each party had their own official leader, whether they are the ruling party or not, meaning they run the executive, which is what most democracy’s have, then Ted Kennedy would’ve been that guy for the Progressive Party. Because he was the person that could bring the party together when times were good or bad. And is a big reason why he’s the Heart of the Democratic Party.

Monday, October 3, 2011

John Fitzhamh: The 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis: The Start Of the War on Terror?

John Fitzhamh: The 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis: The Start Of the War on Terror?

The 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis was awful for lots of reasons. For one the hostages who had to go through that ordeal. The hostages friends and families who had to go through that ordeal. The American People who had to go through this ordeal as well. With all the news coverage and news specials that was dedicated to covering the hostage crisis. The country had to not only go through this ordeal, but also the embarrassment that came with it. How weak America looked as a result, that a group of students Islamic Terrorists in a third-world country could essentially take a country hostage.

As well as take an American presidency hostage. President Carter as well and probably crushed whatever hope he had left in getting reelected in 1980. Especially with Senator Ted Kennedy announcing that he would run for president in the Democratic primary's. America in this period was already going through a very rough period especially economically. With double figure unemployment and interest as well as inflation rates, with another recession. In 1978 as well as 1980 and was facing several other issues that all commanded the attention of the Carter Administration. But when you have American hostages in a foreign country especially in a country thats not friendly with where we had already closed our embassy there, thats job one. And you stay on that job until you (pardon the pun) get the job done.

The Carter Administration was on top of the hostage crisis and I give them credit for that. Despite all of the other issues they were dealing with. Like looking weak to use as an example with Russia invading Afghanistan a neighbor of Iran in late 1979. To try to install a communist government there. There are lots of reasons that led to the Iranian Hostage Crisis, none of them justified taking innocent people hostage. But most of them America's fault and the Iranians were justified in being angry at America. The main reason I believe being the Shah of Iran who was installed by the United States and United Kingdom. And could be removed and replaced at anytime the U.S. and U.K. wanted to.

And the Shah even though he was pretty progressive on economic and foreign policy and was a very bright man, was brutal dictator in how he dealt with political dissent in Iran. And this was a reason why the Islamic Revolution started in 1978 and took over the Iranian Government in early 1979. And the Shah fled to Egypt and an Islamic Theocracy was formed in Iran in 1979. And of course the Iranian Hostage Crisis in November 4, 1979. And even though the United States officially declared War on Terror in late 2001 after 9/11, I believe we were already in this war over twenty years earlier.

I believe the Iranian Hostage Crisis was the start of it in 1979. The U.S. Marine Barracks Bombing in 1982. Libya's sponsoring of terrorism in the mid and late 1980s in Lockerbie Scotland and other areas as well. And then you go to the 1990s with the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993. As well as Saudi Arabia in 1996 and the East African Embassy Bombings in 1998. America was already in the War on Terror long before 2001, we just hadn't officially declared it yet.


Sunday, September 25, 2011

C-SPAN: Q&;A With Brian Lamb- Mick Caouette on Hubert Humphrey: The Art of The Possible


This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState: C-SPAN: Q&A With Brian Lamb- Mick Caouette on Hubert Humphrey: The Art of The Possible

The Art of the Possible, which is the name of a documentary about former Senator and Vice President Hubert Humphrey, I believe is the perfect way to describe Hubert Humphrey. Because that’s how Senator Humphrey saw politics and government. Serving the people and trying to solve problems that they face. He didn’t see government as a debating Society, where Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, bashed each over the head. With neither party having enough power to destroy the other party. But he saw government as a way to try to solve problems, analyze the issues, examine what the political situation is between both parties and try to find solutions that can pass through Congress and that the President would sign. And Hubert Humphrey had plenty experience at this. Being in Congress for twenty-five years and being the Assistant Leader of the Senate from 1961-65. Leader Mike Mansfield’s deputy and then Vice President from 1965-69.

Hubert Humphrey was pretty busy in that time period with the civil rights legislation. The civil rights debates actually were going on in the late 1940s. When Hubert Humphrey was elected to the Senate and he made his famous pro-civil rights speech at the 1948 DNC. And the 1964 Civil Rights Act where Humphrey had a big role in getting that bill passed. And ending the Senate filibuster from the Southern right-wing Democrats. And helping to bring aboard some Northern Progressive Republicans. And as Vice President he had a role in getting the 1965 Voting Rights Act passed as well as Medicare health insurance for senior citizens. But I believe Hubert Humphrey’s legacy in Congress was the civil rights legislation. Who without him those bills never get passed.

Hubert Humphrey had the perfect approach to civil rights, because he saw it as about human and constitutional rights. Which trumps states rights, which was of course the argument that the Southern Dixiecrat Democrats were making. That the states had the right to enforce constitutional rights as they see them. Even if it violates constitutional rights of African-Americans and other racial minorities. But the Republican Party of the 1960s even though they were the opposition party from 1961-69 and were a small minority party in both the House and Senate for the whole decade, deserve a lot of credit in Congress for those bills being passed at all.

Congressional Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, deserve a lot of credit for getting the civil rights legislation passed as well, because they don’t pass in the Senate. Without Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who without him these bills never get passed in this era. Hubert Humphrey tends to get lost when we are talking about great politicians and public servants for whatever reason. But without him a lot of important legislation never gets passed. And a lot of Americans would’ve been denied their constitutional rights as a result, just because of their race. Which would’ve been a disgrace in a liberal democracy like America.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Donnie Mossberg: Malcolm X- We Didn't Land on Plymouth Rock

Source: Donnie Mossberg-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState

Malcolm X. was clearly not a Saint, or a perfect person and America is not a country of Saints or perfect people. We have good, bad and in between all over the country. Hopefully more good than anything else. Malcolm X, started down the road as a lot of people growing up in rough neighborhoods and becoming a criminal. He’s one of the few in this country unfortunately who’s been in jail, that’s actually come out of jail as a better person. He made himself a better man and educated himself. He also went from being a criminal to a racist, or perhaps he was both at the same time. Basically seeing all Caucasians as Devils and perhaps he only knew racist Caucasians and believed because of that, that they were all like that.

But Malcolm X, was someone who learned and taught himself and bettered himself as he got older. Which is one of the reasons his early death was so tragic. Because we’ll never know how great Dr. Martin King and Malcolm X would’ve become as men, because they were both murdered in their late 30s, for both. But Malcolm X was a man who only got better as he got older, which why I believe he had such a strong following in the 1960s and if anything his following has gotten stronger in his death then when he was alive. With a great movie about his life with the great actor Denzel Washington playing Malcolm X in the movie. Well, Malcolm X, easy enough to follow.

Which is again is just another reason why his death was so tragic, because he was so young to die and like Dr King could’ve accomplished so much more. Not just with civil rights, but I believe would’ve gone farther in the areas of poverty and speaking about empowering low-income people to get themselves out of poverty with assistance, but they would do the work to make it happen. As well as rebuilding American cities, so people living in them especially in low-income areas, would have a good shot at a much better life and escaping poverty. But what I respect most about Malcolm X, was his message of empowerment and freedom over dependence. Whether its dependence on public assistance, or anything else.

Low-income people, don’t have the same freedom to live their lives as middle class people, or wealthy people. They simply have very limited resources and are very limited in what they can do with their own lives, especially compared with the rest of the population. And Malcolm X message was about empowering these people to get the freedom that the rest of the population had to live their own lives. And not be dependent on public assistance, in the 1960s when the Great Society and all of these new government programs has contributed to making low-income people more dependent on public assistance for their survival. Public housing, is a perfect example of this, where you build a bunch of high-rise housing projects in low-income areas. Where all of these low-income people live in low-income areas. With high crime and their kids are stuck going to bad schools and having the same future as their parents, or worse.

Malcolm X, wanted low-income people especially in the African-American community, to have the freedom to live their own lives and not be dependent on public assistance their whole lives. And I believe education and choice in education would’ve been a big part of his message. A lot of the message around fighting poverty in America in the past and still today unfortunately, has been government centered and giving low-income people Welfare checks. Instead of empowering low-income people to get the skills that they need and giving them their freedom so they can earn good pay checks from a good job. But that’s changing, it started in the Clinton Administration in the 1990s with Welfare Reform in 1996 with a Republican Congress. Where they worked together to make that happen. But Malcolm X, I believe had a big role in getting this message started in the 1960s and for that a lot is owed to him. His Message of empowerment, is the biggest contribution he made to Africans-Americans and America as a whole.
Donnie Mossberg: Malcolm X- We Didn't Land on Plymouth Rock



Friday, July 8, 2011

Think Progress: CNBC- Representative Michele Bachmann on Social Issues

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState : Think Progress: CNBC- Representative Michele Bachmann on Social Issues

Representative Michele Bachmann wants to as she says run a presidential campaign that’s a three-legged stool. That represents fiscal Conservatives, meaning the Tea Party, national security Conservatives probably meaning Neoconservatives and social Conservatives meaning Christian Conservatives and in America that would mean the Christian-Right. Apparently she did an interview today and came out for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and a law banning porn. The constitutional amendment is nothing new, but the anti-porn law is at least new on her part.

With those two positions Representative Bachmann can forget about appealing to Libertarians. Because she’s come out for at least two big government positions. I would love to hear her speaking out against big government, because then she would be able to run for Hypocrite in Chief instead of Commander-in-Chief. With those two positions she’s just taken, she’ll lose part of her Tea Party base because there are actually real Libertarians and Conservative Libertarians in the Tea Party. Who don’t give a damn about social issues, they are only interested in fiscal and foreign policy.

But Michele could unite the Christian-Right behind her. This three-legged Stool that Representative Bachmann is talking about, that as I see it, she wants to be a three-legged Tool for them. This strategy doesn’t work, a Republican or any other presidential candidate can’t win a presidential election with a base that includes Libertarians, theocrats and Neoconservatives. And they go off against big government when she’s in favor of big government. Because their positions contradict each other. Representative Bachman is a Neoconservative on social issues and national security and a fiscal Conservative.

A candidate like this can’t appeal to Libertarians. Her best bet is to appeal to fiscal and Neoconservatives. Instead of going for everybody on the right-wing, including residents at mental hospitals. Because there are still classical Conservatives out there who don’t care what people do with their own lives. And don’t want government trying to tell people how to live. Michelle Bachmann is a religious Conservative with a fiscal message. She’s not a unifying candidate that can bring the entire Republican Party behind her. And I believe she actually knows this because, I believe she’s politically smart enough to understand this. Which makes her a tool for all the other factions she claims to speak for.

Monday, July 4, 2011

NFLN: Video: Top Ten Most Feared Tacklers: Number One Dick Butkus: The Monster of the Midway






When I think of tough players in the NFL, I think of guys who could and did scare the hell out of their opponents, if not people watching the game as well. I think of guys who not only scared the hell out of their opponents on the football field but on film in practice, putting the fear of God into offenders and offensive coaches and head coaches. Wow, we are facing this guy this week, how are we going to block him or how many guys are we going to need to block him on any play?

I can think of a guy who not only hit and tackled his opponents but also hit them so hard that they knew exactly who hit them, because they never felt that kind of pain from anyone else. Offenders were always trying to avoid Dick Butkus, who was a 6'3", 240 to 245-pound MLB with the Bears from 1965 to 1973 and at his size was playing middle linebacker at a time when everyone else that size was an offensive or defensive lineman. This meant you basically needed an OL to block him, and probably a couple of them.

Butkus was all muscle, and not only huge and strong, but fast as well.  He probably ran a 4.4 to 4.5 forty, which is similar to Lawrence Taylor and Ray Lewis, three LBs who weigh about the same and are all muscle, but Taylor and Lewis played in an era where big LBs were typical. The closest LB I've seen to Butkus's size, strength, and athletic ability would be Brian Urlacher.  I am not saying Urlacher is as good as any of these other LBs, because he's not, but he is headed to the Hall of Fame.

Urlacher is a 6'4", 265-pound MLB, again the size of a DL playing middle linebacker because of his athletic ability and speed. These guys are freaks as athletes, but especially as linebackers, but Dick Butkus was the first freakish LB who was also a great player and is still the best at his position and best LB ever, period.

The name Dick Butkus itself sounds like a tough guy. It doesn't sound like the name of a jockey.  Wiley Pope sounds like the name of a jockey, but Dick Butkus sounds like the name of a macho individual who probably played football and perhaps even had to play football to relieve some of his testosterone.  If he hadn't played football, he might have ended up in jail or something; that last part is a joke, but you get the idea.

Some people who are less impressed with Dick Butkus, to put it mildly, make the argument that Butkus only played nine seasons, so his greatness isn't as impressive because it wasn't as long.  What they fail to realize is that what Butkus accomplished in his nine seasons has been matched by no other, which is why he's the best. Jim Brown also only played nine seasons but what he accomplished in nine seasons, no other running back has matched: nine-time Pro Bowler, eight rushing titles, and never missed a game as well.

Dick Butkus left the NFL as the all-time leader in fumble recoveries, 30 INT again in nine seasons as a MLB, not a corner or safety. He once sacked the quarterback 20 times in a season, again as a MLB not as a DL, also in a 14-game season. But these are just stats.  The way to judge Dick Butkus is the same way you need to judge Jim Brown. What did he bring to to the table and what did offenses have to do to stop him? 

Another way to judge Dick Butkus is to look at the position he played. He played MLB, meaning that the offense always knew where he lined up and could always prepare for him. He was predictable in a sense; he wasn't a rush end like a OLB/DE Hybrid who lined up in several different positions always looking for the best matchup like, let's say, Lawrence Taylor or Derrick Thomas.

Offenses knew where he was and still couldn't stop Butkus. Dick Butkus was the best ever at what he did, because he basically couldn't be stopped.  He played the last four seasons of his career on two bad knees, which is why he only played nine seasons, but he was still an eight-time Pro Bowler.  Dick Butkus was the most feared and the best LB to ever live.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Liberty Pen: The Mike Wallace Show 1959: Ayn Rand- Liberty vs. Statism

Libertarian-Objectivist- 
This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState: Liberty Pen: The Mike Wallace Show 1959: Ayn Rand- Liberty vs. Statism

If you’re a Liberal such in my case, or a Libertarian/Objectivist in Ayn Rand’s case, you believe in individual liberty. That the people have the right to essentially govern themselves. Now, my approach to liberty compared with Ayn Rand’s, is much different, but our objectives are the same. Ayn Rand, is exactly what a Classical Libertarian is. Keep government completely out of the economy. No taxation, regulation, or a safety net coming from the government. I however, believe that government has a role in not regulating how people live their own lives, but how they interact with each other. To protect innocent people from those who would hurt them, but not try to protect people from themselves.

If you’re a Socialist, you essentially believe that the country is in it together and that no one should have a lot more than others. Even if they created that material wealth on their own. And that government should heavily tax those who make a lot. For one, to give to those who don’t have much. And that government essentially knows best in what the people need to live and should be the one providing those service for the people. That government’s role is essentially to spread the wealth throughout society through high taxes. But not just high taxes on high earners, but everyone in general.

If you’re an authoritarian, or statist, lets take Communists for example, you essentially believe that government’s role is to protect people from themselves, but also to protect people from the government. And that power comes and rests with the government. That if people have liberty, they won’t know what to do with it, which will cause instability. This is essentially the argument that the Chinese Communist Party and the Iranian Theocratic Islamists have made since they’ve been in power.

Despite all the stereotypes that Liberals have now about being about the welfare state and centralized power, especially coming from the right-wing and being bought in by the mainstream media, that’s really not what liberalism is about. Liberalism, is not about the welfare state, centralized power and government control. Those things relate to socialism and statism. Liberalism, is about individual liberty and equality of opportunity for the individual. Liberalism, has more in common with libertarianism like in Ayn Rand’s case, but different from libertarianism and socialism.


Friday, June 17, 2011

Passionate Patriots: Video: 1968 DNC Nightmare in Chicago


This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on Blogger

The Democratic Party cost themselves the presidential election of 1968 and a chance to win the White House for a third straight time and 8-10 presidential elections, going back to 1932 with FDR. To go along with another Democratic Congress because of how divided they were on the Vietnam War. A lot of that can be blamed on President Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam War, but this can also be blamed on the Far-Left flank of the Democratic Party that’s anti-war period. Even when we are attacked and they can take their anti-war feelings to extreme at times, as we saw with the 1968 riots at the Democratic Convention.

The New-Left in the Democratic Party doesn’t deserve all the blame here. The Chicago Police didn’t do a very good job of handling the situation either. And of course Richard Nixon being the master politician that he was, jumped all over on the Democratic division and moved himself to be a unity candidate. Which of course he wasn’t. By the time President Nixon left office in August of 1974, America if anything was even more divided. 1968 was a crazy year with a lot of bad for the country with some good in it. But all bad for the Democratic Party.

A year where President Johnson announced he wasn’t running for reelection as President because of how unpopular he was. But even had he run for reelection, he would’ve had a very hard time getting renominated by a party that had moved away from him. And had moved into an anti-war socialist direction. That wanted to bring all of our troops home from Vietnam and use that money to build the country.

1968 was also a crazy year for democrats who once they moved away from LBJ, the Far-Left flank of the party went searching for their own candidate to take on the GOP in the fall. First it was Senator Eugene McCarthy until Senator Robert Kennedy declared his candidacy for President, then they threw all of their support behind him up until he was assassinated in June of 68. And then of the party went behind Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the establishment wing of the party.

But some New-Left support went back to Senator McCarthy, as well as Senator George McGovern. Another candidate from the Far-Left flank of the party. As it turned out even though 1968 might have looked like a fluke, it clearly wasn’t. Because in 1972 Democrats had similar issues. They were disorganized, didn’t have a clear leader with more divisive presidential primary’s and once again the Far-Left flank deciding who the Democratic presidential nominee would be. Senator George McGovern taking on an establishment GOP Candidate President Nixon and losing 49 States in a landslide.

When the Democratic Party is united it tends to win and do very well. Because its bigger than the Republican Party and represents more people in the country. But when it’s divided like it was in 68, 72, 80 and 84, it loses very bad. Because a faction of their party doesn’t show up to the polls to vote.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

AP: Raw Video: U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner Resigns in Wake of Sexting Scandal



Today U.S. Representatives Anthony Weiner, Democrat from New York, New York City to be specific, stepped up to the plate and hit a home Run. (Sorry for the baseball analogy for you non-sports fans) And did the right thing by resigning his seat in the House of Representatives. As I’ve said before it’s not what Representative Weiner did that was wrong with his own private time, (well his wife might disagree with that) and yes members of Congress do have private time, they are not always at work, just look at the U.S. Senate, I rest my case. When do they ever work?

It’s not what Representative Weiner did with his free time that’s the problem with me and a lot of other people. As a liberal I could care less with what people do with their free time. With what Representative Weiner did is between him and his wife and their family if they have one yet. It’s the consequences of his actions that are the problem, the fact of how public he alone made them by sharing them on Twitter and professional status that’s the problem. We are not talking about Joe Jones truck driver, not that there’s anything wrong with Joe Jones truck driver. I’m sure he’s a fine man, I’m not trying to sound like a snob or something here.

We are talking about a U.S. Representative and a member of Congress, a constitutional officer and a public official. The fact in today’s information age, what people do in public especially public officials, the whole world literally gets to see it. And in a way is all of our business whether that’s the right thing or not. Because of the fact that we all have the ability to weigh in on it. As I’m doing now by blogging about it, but blogging is not the only way to weigh in on stories like this. WordPress, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace go down the line. And that’s enough plugs on my part, no wait I forgot my personal favorite Blogger.

Because of Representative Weiner’s irresponsible actions to post in public his affairs so to speak, the U.S. House especially the Democratic Leadership and the rest of the Democratic Caucus, are forced to deal with it in one way or the other. Either take questions about it, or take official actions, which is apparently what the House as a whole was preparing to do. Which is to file and investigation into the Weiner story. (The big Weiner story) Politically this would be bad for everyone, House Democrats for having to deal with this story with hearings and investigations as well as the House GOP.

But it would be a huge distraction especially for the House Democratic Leadership who as of right now are in good position of retaking the majority in the House in 2012. And pushing their own agenda once they were to retake the majority. Thanks to House GOP mishandling of Medicare back in April, but the House Democratic Leadership were already breaking records in fundraising and recruiting candidates to take on the 62 Republican freshmen from 2010.

And the House GOP Medicare fiasco just reinforced that, but with the Weiner story, instead of concentrating on their own agenda they have to concentrate on Representative Weiner instead. So I’m glad Representative Weiner stepped up to the plate today and did the right thing and stepped down from office. Which I hope will bring and end to this story, which I think will continue, but at least he did his part to close this ugly chapter.
Anthony Weiner

Monday, June 6, 2011

FRS Daily Press Plus: Woman Skinny Jeans in Boots At The School


Source: David Barrientos-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press Plus

Here’s a tall gorgeous curvy sexy blonde that proves that the myth that all blonde women are rail-thin is a myth. Yes blonde women have curves as well and this blonde is proud of hers and showcases them very well. In her tight denim jeans in leather boots. As well as a leather jacket. Gorgeous sexy women that’s very proud of how she looks and wants the world to see it. 

Skinny women to me aren’t sexy. I’m not interested in stereotypical valley girls or stereotypical rail-thin models. I’m not interested in obese women who’ve never missed and opportunity to eat or never turned downs seconds as well. I’m interested healthy women, women who take care of themselves. Who eat well, balanced meals who work out as well, who take care of themselves. 

Healthy women to me are sexy women as you see in this video. Beautiful sexy women in a very sexy outfit that combines both worlds of leather and denim into one very sexy package, a pleasure to check out. Tall gorgeous sexy blonde because she takes care of herself and is proud of that and lets the world see how healthy she is. 



Friday, June 3, 2011

IBob 1983: Blonde Woman in Denim Jeans in Boots

Source: IBob 1983-
Source: This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press Plus

I saw a video on YouTube a year ago of a beautiful sexy looking women I guess out shopping for the day. Looking very sexy with a very tight body. She was about as sexy and well-built a women as I had seen in a while. She looked great in a sweater, tight denim skinny jeans in black leather boots. Out shopping or that is what the video wanted to portray and she looked great. 

This women knows she’s beautiful and sexy, knows she has a great body and how she looks in tight denim jeans. And is apparently very proud of that, I’m guessing so is her husband or boyfriend, who I believe shot this video. And I can’t blame her, she really knows how to get guys attention and why not. She is not ashamed or her sex appeal and why should she be, she’s obviously proud of it, as she should be. 

I doubt it’s the only quality she has going for her. But physical appearance at least for sighted people is the first thing that we notice about people. Both men and women and she has a very sexy physical appearance, so why not highlight that. And with skin-tight blue denim jeans with her body and how they showcase her butt and legs. 

Plus throw in a tight sweater and jacket and black Leather Boots. She did about as good of a job that could be done, in highlighting her physical sex appeal. Sexy women out for the day is a YouTube video I would suggest if you're interested in sexy women that know and are proud of their sex appeal. 
IBob 1983: Blonde Girl in Denim Jeans in Nice Boots


Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Blondes in Boots: Sexy Women Take Care of Themselves


Source: Blondes in Boots-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press Plus

I love confident women who know they look good and sexy. Women who know that they are sexy and know men know they are sexy. And want the world to know that they are sexy and have the confidence to show people that they are sexy. I’m not talking about arrogance or women thinking they are more than they actually are. But beautiful well-built women who take care of themselves, who eat full-balanced meals and workout. 

Not women who starve themselves or eat like there’s no more food around. But women who take care of themselves and have the confidence to show others how healthy they are. Sexy women to me love wearing tight jeans, whether they are denim jeans or leather jeans. Leather jeans on women being more popular in Europe than in America. Unfortunately from the perspective of an American man. 

Tight jeans are a perfect way for a sexy women to show off their body. Because they highlight their curves so much. But they have to be careful with them and make sure they are wearing the right pair of tight jeans, denim or leather. Because if they have an aspect they don’t want the world to see, if they are wearing the wrong pair of tight jeans, everyone will know. 

Because of tight jeans highlight a women’s curves. Sexy women should have no problem showing the world how they look. Because they are sexy and a lot of people, especially men would like to see that. But if you are rail-thin, or you are lets say twenty-pounds or more overweight and even obese, you'll look even much more so, especially if you are wearing skin-tight or skinny jeans. 
Blondes in Boots: Sexy Woman in Jeans in Boots


Miss Sixty Girl: Denim Jeans, Brown Belt and Boots



Source: Miss Sixty Girl-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press Plus

Gotta love women who are physically confident and are confident because they know they are sexy. They know they are beautiful and sexy because they have natural sex appeal. Natural beauty with a great natural body, or they work hard at taking care of themselves, or both. It's depressing to me to see beautiful sexy women who look ragged by the time they reach their mid 30s, or in Marilyn Monroe’s case dead by 36. 

Or in Whitney Houston’s case a beautiful women one of the best looking in the music industry, looking very unhealthy because of drug abuse and perhaps not eating properly and starving herself, in her 40s. But it's very impressive to me to see gorgeous Sexy Women in their 40s, take Mariah Carey for example. Or in their 50s with Catherine Bach or 60s like Jaclyn Smith’s case or 70s in Raquel Welch’s and Tina Turner’s case. 

Because these sexy women take care of themselves, they don’t take drugs. They eat properly, balanced meals, they get enough sleep, they workout and they have a good time. Which relieves stress and many of these middle age, or upper middle age women look better than a lot of these younger women. And they don’t burn out because they take care of themselves. 

And don’t get swept away in the Hollywood lifestyle and celebrity culture. They have ability as far as their job and are always able to find work. But they also always look great because they work at it. It's great to have natural beauty and a great natural body, but that only goes so far. Just like a car or a house you have to be able to maintain it, to keep looking great. 
Miss Sixty Girl: Denim Jeans, Belt and Boots


Friday, May 27, 2011

Sandy Sticklake: How Women Put on Tight Jeans

Thanks to revolution of tight designer dark wash denim jeans of the late 70s and into the 80s and with those style of denim jeans coming back in the late 90s and exploded even further in the last decade and has kept growing, sexy women in America and around the world now have another ability to show off their sex appeal. Especially with acceptance of tight and now skinny denim as a mainstream versatile pant. That can be worn in multiple ways and in multiple places. 
You now see women wearing tight jeans to the office and not just on Casual Friday anymore. And we now see women wearing them with suit jackets and blouses. And of course with leather jackets and of course my favorite with boots, leather and suede. You see women wearing tight denim in boots and over boots. That first came into style in the late 70s, but came back in a big way six years ago and I don’t think that look is going away anytime soon. 
Especially for the fall and winter, because denim is both a practical look, like in bad cold weather, but also very stylish and sexy. Men love sexy Women who wear tight denim on a regular basis. And women know this and apparently are more than willing to get our attention with them. There are women who literally wear tight denim jeans everywhere and all the time. 
The only thing about tight denim, especially as it comes to skinny jeans, is there’s not a lot of room for error with them. Women better being wearing the right tight denim jeans for their body. Because they are very revealing, just like skin-tight leather jeans. (Just ask Jim Morrison) So if you have something about your body, especially your lower body that you don’t want to reveal, skin-tight denims are not the pants for you. 


Thursday, May 26, 2011

Geo Beats: How To Pick Denim- Women's Fashion Guide

Source: Geo Beats-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press Plus  

As a man, you gotta love women who know they are sexy and aren’t afraid to let the world know it. It's a major reason why we love women and what get's our attention at first sight. And once they have our attention, then we can get to know them. If we like them not just physically, but personally as well, then we see them again. If they like us, it's a beauty in the male-female relationship. 
We get each others attention with our eyes. "Hum I think I’m attracted to that person, I would like to meet them". And if you discover you like them personally as well and they like you, then  you go out with them and you continue to see each other. As long as you get along and find each other interesting. But it's the physical attraction that get's our attention first, it's really that simple. 
Some might say that's superficial, others like myself believe that's just honest and truthful. If you see an unattractive women or man in a bar, restaurant, club or whatever, your first instinct, unless there’s a financial motivation involved, generally won’t be to walk up to them and get to know that person. Generally speaking, that's just being honest and truthful. 
It's people's eyes that draws their attention to other people in public. Especially at bars, restaurants and clubs. And sexy women and men know this, which is why they’ll look and dress in a certain way to get people to notice them. And when they have our attention, we'll approach them if we believe they are single and approachable, generally. And we take both take it from there. 
Geo Beats: How To Pick Denim- Women's Fashion Guide


Thursday, May 19, 2011

Ehow Beauty: Fashion Advice For Women- How to Weak Knee-High Boots With Denim Jeans

I love sexy women who know they are sexy and not afraid to show it. To me this is part of freedom and one of the many benefits of living in a liberal democracy. The freedom for people to be themselves and to live their own lives. As long as they aren’t hurting anyone else with their freedom. And not having big government tell them what they can and can’t do with their lives. Sexuality is part of that freedom, it's sexual freedom. 
The ability for people to show others what they have in a physical way. It’s the difference between living in a liberal democracy like America and authoritarian country like Iran. In America people have the right to essentially be themselves as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. This is in the Constitution, which is unfortunately isn’t always enforced equally for everyone. 
The Equal Protection Clause isn’t always enforced properly unfortunately. We constantly have people fighting for their constitutional rights in court that they believe were violated by others. But under our constitution people essentially have the right to live their own lives. It’s just one difference between living in a liberal democracy like America and a authoritarian theocracy like Iran. 
Iran a country where freedom is constricted to what the central government believes is moral. Even if people aren’t hurting anyone with their actions. Thank God for women's liberation of the 1960s that if anything just grew stronger in the 1970s that led up to the designer denim jeans revolution of the late 1970s that went into the 1980s. That came back even stronger in the late 1990s, that we as culture are still go through almost twenty-years later culturally.  
Eshow Beauty: Fashion Advice For Women- How To Wear Knee-High Boots With Jeans