PBS: NewsHour- 'Five States Move to Restrict Access to Abortion Services'

Source:PBS NewsHour- Ilyse Hogue from National Pro-Choice America. 

Source:The Daily Times 

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Cyberchase, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Elinor Wonders Why, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House." 

From Wikipedia 

"Five states have moved to adopt tighter abortion regulations, including North Dakota, which has the nation's strictest abortion regulation, outlawing abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected. Jeffrey Brown gets perspectives from Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life and Ilyse Hogue of NARAL Pro-Choice America." 

From the PBS NewsHour

All of these abortion restriction laws are coming in red states that like to complain about big government and government interfering in our lives and so-forth and yet they write laws that do exactly that. And interfere with the most personal of decisions that Americans will ever make which get’s to our healthcare.

In this case women’s healthcare and who decides whether women give birth or not after being pregnant. Apparently big government in red states is government they do not like mainly as it relates to the economy. But big government that they do like as it has to do with our personal lives is okay, because: “It’s in our national interest to have government making these decisions for us. Rather than individuals have the freedom and responsibility to make these decisions for ourselves.”

And then you get to the constitutional and legal aspects of this where these laws will be ruled unconstitutional. Because of the rock solid pro-choice majority on it. And you have states defending laws in court with taxpayer funds that will be ruled unconstitutional. Money that would’ve been spent for other things that would not get thrown out.

Pop User: 'Howard Phillips Welcomes Ron Paul (1997)'

Source:Pop User- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) on the Howard Phillips Show, in 1997.

"Howard Phillips, founder of the Constitution Party, welcomes Ron Paul to the Conservative Roundtable. This is a classic edition from 1997. Paul talks about his run to reclaim his seat after imposing his own belief in Congressional term limits on himself, focusing on what kind of character voters are comfortable supporting. Ron Paul of course ran for president in 2008. He also discusses the 9th and 10th amendment, honest and sound money, public housing, runaway government deficit spending, inflation, the Federal Reserve - Fed, and how the public must demand real change."

From Pop User 

What I personally respect about Ron Paul is that the Ron Paul you see back in the late 1990s (in 1997) is the same Ron Paul today and fighting and believing in the same things, in what he views as a constitutional government and that the Federal Government is grown way too big and it must be limited back to where it was pre-New Deal of the 1930s and so-forth. And that we need more individual freedom both economic and personal and eliminate prohibition all together.

What I like about Ron Paul as a Liberal myself (and not a Libertarian, in Ron Paul's case) is the whole idea of individual freedom both economic and personal as well, as well as personal responsibility. But even though I believe the Federal Government is too big and more power needs to be sent down to the states and people themselves, we disagree about how much smaller the Federal Government should be. 

But where Ron Paul was sixteen years ago is the Ron Paul that we see today and is one politician that you can count on. At least to the extent that you know what he believes and that he won't change his politics when the politics change. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Canada Classic Sports: CFL 1974- Grey Cup- Montreal Alouettes vs Edmonton Eskimos: Full Game

Source:Canada Classic Sports- the 1974 CFL Grey Cup, from Vancouver, British Columbia.

Source:The Daily Times 

"1974 Grey Cup Championship Game, Canadian Football League, Montreal Alouettes vs Edmonton Eskimos." 

From Canada Classic Sports

An interesting year for the CFL, at least in the sense that only one team won ten games the entire year, the Edmonton Eskimos, who finished 10-5 in the regular season. Which would be like having only one team in the NFL only winning 10 games, which is rarely if ever has happened. At least since the 1960s or so. Or only have one team in the NHL or NBA only winning 50 games, which may of never of happened, at least yet. 

At least in the NFL and I imagine the CFL as well since both leagues play 16 and 18 games respectfully, a ten win season for a team means they are a good team and had a good year. So when you only have one team in the entire league accomplish that, it means there weren’t a lot of real good teams. Unless you’re a big fan of parity or something where everyone is fairly equal.

Bleacher Report: Matt Eichel- 'CFL: Expansion a Risky Business'

Source:Bleacher Report- the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and Calgary Stampeders in CFL action.

"Expansion. Sounds like a word that can bring joy, anger, hostility, and a whole host of other emotions to fans in any sports league.

To some, expansion throws tradition and history out the door. To others, it's a chance to create something new.

In the Canadian Football League, expansion has always seemed to be a hot button subject of debate.

Back at the start of the 1990s, the CFL, in an attempt to compete with the rival National Football League to the south, decided to expand into the United States. In 1993, the first US-based CFL team—the Sacramento Gold Miners—was admitted into the league." 

From Bleacher Report 

To put it simply, CFL expansion into America didn't work because it had bad management, bad marketing, lack of funds, lack of homework. They seemed to have this idea that if the CFL just came to America, it would automatically work especially in markets that didn't have NFL franchises, because of how much Americans love football and it doesn't work like that.

The main reason NFL expansion works in America. Is because for a city to be rewarded an NFL franchise, it has to meet certain requirements. The city has to have the right management group of people who can show they not only know how to run a sports franchise, but a business as well. And that's exactly what sports franchises are, they are business's, companies even and they must have money up front to succeed.

Perspective NFL franchises also have to show they can make money down the road. And they have to sell a certain amount of tickets up front what are called season tickets to show that their expansion team will have the support they need up front to survive. And only Baltimore showed they had that type of support and management.

The Baltimore Stallions had a major league caliber management team led by Jim Speros, who was their Governor running a CFL franchise. And the CFL all due respect and many ways it's a great league, but its not major league compared with the NFL where the other American CFL franchises like the Birmingham Barracudas , the Memphis Mad Dogs, and, San Antonio Texans playing in huge 70-80 thousand seat stadiums and drawing 15-20 thousand fans a game.

What these American CFL franchises should've been able to do just before being rewarded a CFL franchise, was to show that they could sell 15-20 thousand season tickets per season, come up with local TV and radio deals, be able to market their clubs and promote their players, have the money to spend on quality players and were committed to putting a winning product on the field each season. Again, only the Stallions and maybe the San Antonio Texans showed they could do this. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

TLC: Prison Diaries- Till Death Do Us Part

Source:Barguz Nasila- from the TLC show Prison Diaries.

Source:The Daily Times 

“Prison diaries full episodes – Till death us part- – [Prison life documentary 2015]” 

From Barguz Nasila 

Source:The Daily Times- from the TLC show Prison Diaries.

Just because I’m not a complete cynic, I tend to be willing to give prison inmates the benefit of the doubt when they say they are sorry for what they did that landed them in prison and sorry for the crime they committed. Of course not knowing whether they are truly sorry, or not especially if they are up for parole, or have a shot at one day being released from prison.

I have this forgive, but not forget aspect about me. But we have a prison system in America and I imagine in other countries have prison systems for other reasons as well.

That we hold people accountable for the decisions that they make in life for good and bad. And that if you make good decisions in life, chances are you will be rewarded for those decisions. But if they make bad decisions in life, like hurting innocent people, you’ll also be held accountable for those decisions as well. And as it turns out, we tend to hold people more accountable for their bad decisions than their good decisions.

The prison system is filled with people who’ve made a lot of bad decisions in life. And we also have a lot of people who are in prison for making bad decisions, but who didn’t hurt people. And have never been a threat to anyone in society and aren’t now except to themselves perhaps. But generally speaking, we have a lot of people in prison because they’ve hurt other people either intentionally, or unintentionally. But they are there for hurting people and are being held accountable for what they’ve done.

And this represents a perfect example of why prisons are a place which of course aren’t perfect, but that place where we hold people accountable for making bad decisions and hurting other people. And that’s what they should be for holding people accountable for hurting other people. Generally physically, but economically as well. And they shouldn’t be for people who hurt themselves. We have too many people in prison for that. And there are better ways we can be dealing with addiction than prison.

Prisons are full of people who’ve made a lot of bad decisions as you can see in this video. And these people just of made better decisions with their lives starting as adolescents. And then moving on as adults, which is why they are probably not in prison today. Which tells me at least that people need to think before acting. And not act off of anger, or emotion, but take the time to think about what they are doing and what’s the best course to take from there.

Real Time With Bill Maher- The Paul Ryan Budget (2011)

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- CNN host Elliot Spitzer on Real Time With Bill Maher.

"Andrew Sullivan Schools Maher and Spitzer on Paul Ryan and Budget. Very surprising."

From Only Waxing

I disagree with Andrew Sullivan on one point. Paul Ryan doesn’t take on Social Security, or even Medicare in his budget plan. He just says we should do those things and tries to force senior citizens on private health insurance, with his voucher program. Republicans are supposed to believe in freedom of choice when it comes to economic policy, but Paul Ryan would take Medicare away from seniors.

What Representative Paul Ryan (Chairman of the Budget Committee) tried to do in the last Congress and so far in this Congress, was an attempt at least on paper to balance the Federal budget. But by only concentrating on around 15-20% of the Federal budget. And most of those cuts coming from non-Social Security and Medicare social-insurance programs.

If you saw Bill Maher in this video someone who I normally disagree with layout, Chairman Ryan’s attempts to balance the budget by going after the small appetizers or side dishes.

Imagine a meal consisting of steak, mashed potatoes and lets say a caesar salad (good meal, right) instead of targeting the meat of the meal or even the potatoes, the stuff that fills people up in the meal, normally, what Chairman Ryan goes after a couple of leafs in the meal. “Big meal with too much food, we are going to take away a couple of leafs and call it fat reduction, instead of deficit reduction.”

The meat and potatoes in the United States Government’s budget is defense, Social Security, Medicare and to a certain extent Medicaid. And then there are a bunch of public assistance programs of around 30 billion-dollars or so that aids workers who do not make enough money, or are unemployed. Which is why I believe Paul Ryan and his followers are as interested in deficit reduction, as the typical career politician (lets say House or Senate) is interested in raising taxes or cutting Social Security during an election year when they are up for reelection, or getting a real job and earning their money. In other words: not at all.

If House Republicans were serious about deficit reduction, then they would write and pass a plan that solves the problem by going at the meat of the Federal budget. And not just picking away at salad leaves in it. Chairman Ryan is right I believe about the seriousness of the debt and deficit, but is not ready to solve the problems.

If I’m starving and its late at night and I haven’t had anything to eat all day, I don’t snack on a couple of crackers thinking my hunger will go away. I make myself a meal or buy one. The same thing with deficit reduction, that if you are serious about the budget you go where the meat is. Or in this case the money and you cut back in areas where you can afford to save money. That will help you solve the problem.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

Huffington Post: Sasha Brookner- 'From Blue to Green: Why I Left the Democratic Party'

Source:Fox News- a Democratic Congress: I wish!

"In the 15th century, the Eastern Orthodox Christians had a unique aphorism: “Better the turban than the mitre.” They were referring to the preferable conquer of the Balkans by the Ottoman Turks rather than the Western Roman Catholic empire. Today, that lesser of two evil principles isn’t about maintaining freedom of religion; rather it’s used by Democrats to justify genocide, drones, Guantanamo, rendition, kill lists and cutting heat subsidies for the poor under the past its sell-by date defense that Republicans would double these demons. It is evident that this perpetual comparative doctrine has reached steroid proportions. Although President Barack Obama may wear the “turban” when it comes to certain domestic policies, such as gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research, when it comes to foreign policy, corporate interests, and saying farewell to Magna Carta, both the Elephants and the Donkeys are wearing the Bishop’s hat." 

From The Huffington Post

I get the disappointment on the Left from Progressives in President Obama when it comes to the War on Drugs and civil liberties. Why is that, because I share the same disappointments as a Liberal myself and believe we would be moving in a different direction on these issues with a liberal democratic President. But what has happened is that the Obama Administration has made these things worst instead.

I do not get the disappointment in President Obama on lets say the Far-Left Social Democrats in the Democratic Party and outside of the Democratic Party for President Obama not being progressive or socialist enough. Because then candidate Obama never ran as a McGovern Democrat, but a JFK or RFK Democrat especially on foreign policy. Not someone who was running to create a new New Deal or Great Society. 

Social Democrats already had their opportunity to vote for those candidates in Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. What candidate Obama wanted to do was to make the current safety net programs work better, not expand them. And put more people to work and making it on their own in America.

This whole deal about why Sasha Brookner left the Democratic Party for the Green Party, is a perfect example of why we need to blowup the two-party system in America. And get a political system that represents the entire country ideologically. 

We need a political system where Social Democrats who still see the Democratic Party as that George McGovern Social Democratic Party of the 1960s and 70s, which we aren't now, would have their own Social Democratic Party to go too. Whether it's the Green Party or a Democratic Socialist Party and where they could elect their own socialist, pacifist non-aggression anti-authority, candidates. Except when it comes to the economy, of course candidates to political office or at least vote for them and know about them and see them debate and so-forth. And on the ballot, because people whoever saw Barack Obama as that type of Democrat. Probably do not fit in very well in the Democratic Party anymore.

If you put the entire so-called progressive lets call them (to be nice) but really the entire New-Left social democratic movement that was created in the 1960s that today spans over several different parties in America and put them all in one party, you might have a political party that represents 10-15% of the country and wouldn't be seen as outsiders in their own party. But part of the mainstream which is where Social Democrats should be headed whether it's the Green Party or Democratic Socialist Party. But one united party they would call home. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.