Roll Call: Bridget Bowman: House Republicans Investigating Washington D.C. Marijuana Legalization

“One day before the District of Columbia is set to legalize marijuana, members of Congress are launching an investigation into D.C.’s decision to do so, and warning that implementing legalization would break the law.

“If you decide to move forward tomorrow with the legalization of marijuana in the District, you will be doing so in knowing and willful violation of the law,” House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and Subcommittee on Government Operations Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., wrote in a letter sent to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser early Wednesday morning.

The lawmakers’ committees have jurisdiction over D.C. and the assertion is not a surprise. Chaffetz and others have been saying for weeks that the District cannot move forward with legalization. But in a departure from previous statements in which they said Congress did not need to take further action, they have opened a probe and are calling on D.C. to turn over employee information, spending figures and communications regarding legalization by March 10.

The District is poised to implement Initiative 71, approved by 70 percent of D.C. voters last fall, at 12:01 a.m. Thursday. The initiative legalizes possession of two ounces of marijuana and cultivation of six plants, three of which can be mature, for adults over the age of 21.

Congress moved to block the initiative in December by attaching a rider to the year-end spending package barring federal and local funds from being used “to enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or reduce penalties associated with the possession, use or distribution” of marijuana. D.C. officials argue the rider blocks enacting any further changes to marijuana policy, but say the city can carry out the initiative because it was enacted before the spending package was signed into law.”

Source:Roll Call

First of all to dare to correct Roll Call, this is not about the U.S. Congress or even Congressional Republicans against the City of Washington when it comes to legalizing marijuana. Which they already have and marijuana is now legal in Washington for adults. This is about a group of House Republicans on the Government Oversight Committee led by Representative Jason Chaffetz who is Chairman of that committee and other members of that committee who want to put Uncle Sam’s big foot in the way how Washington deals with marijuana in their city.

Apparently the party that is supposed to be anti-big government and Uncle Sam and pro-federalism which is what Republicans have traditionally advertise them as, is now Uncle Sam’s favorite nephews and nieces. And marijuana in Washington is just one example of that. Same-sex marriage and pornography are other perfect examples of that. But the problem that House Republicans have as it relates to marijuana in Washington is that Congress the House and Senate together passed their bill that would throw out marijuana legalization that President Obama signed after the city passed their legalization bill.

The thirty-day period that Congress has to review and overthrow laws that Washington passes themselves has already expired. With neither the House or Senate acting on anything that would overturn the city’s law. So the Washington marijuana legalization law goes forward. And House Republicans led by Representative Chaffetz are left to hold hearings over the Washington law, but without much if any ability to actually overturn it. Because they decided to act against the law after the law was already passed.

Posted in Originals, Roll Call | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Marijuana Policy Project: Morgan Fox: Marijuana Now Legal in Washington D.C.

Source:Marijuana Policy Project

I’m sick and tired especially as someone who is a Liberal Federalist of hearing Republicans talk about local control and federalism when they don’t seem to believe in it. Except when it comes to things that they agree with, which is not what federalism is about. Federalism is about decentralization of power from the Federal Government down to the states and localities to manage their own state and local affairs. Which is all the City of Washington wants to do. They want to be able to make key law enforcement decisions for themselves. Like whether it not to arrest someone for possessing or using marijuana. Or arrest adults from buying it or selling it to other adults.

Washington over the last twenty years has become one of the safest big cities in the country. No longer the crime or murder capital of the country and not even close. As I’m sure a lot of veteran House Republicans know under having live here and work in the city a lot of them. Whether they want to admit that or not. The economy has boomed the last fifteen years or even as the rest of the country has struggled for the most part in the same time period. Washington is no longer drowning in debt, deficits, unlike the Federal Government. And instead has run surplus’. They’ve shown they know how to manage their own city affairs and that is all they want to do.

House Republican should butt the hell out and instead paying attention to federal affairs like dealing with terrorism, investing in infrastructure, fixing No Child Left Behind, which would actually help Washington. And let Washington manage Washington and stop arresting adults for simply consuming or possessing marijuana. And stop threatening people about how they do their own jobs with arrests. Washington is not scared of Uncle Sam because the only a group of House Republicans have much of an interest in actually trying to stop marijuana legalization in Washington. So the city will probably win on this, but this isn’t a battle that they should even have to fight.

Posted in Maryland, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Slate Magazine: Beth Ethier: Senate Leader Mitch McConnell Promotes Industrial Hemp

Source:Slate Magazine

This might be the only bipartisan bill short of a federal budget and the appropriations bills that Congress may pass this year. At least in the Senate where I think Leader Mitch McConnell will have Democratic support including from Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Pat Leahy the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee and the two Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley. To give Leader McConnell credit, he supported at least limited marijuana legalization in the last Congress. Saying that the states should have the ability to legalize marijuana if they chose too.

But this bill that Leader McConnell will be pushing in this Congress starting in the Senate is about Kentucky. His farmers want it to go along with tobacco and perhaps move away from tobacco. What is good for Kentucky farmers I guess is good for the rest of the country according to Mitch. There is also a bipartisan coalition of Representatives in the House that will try to push a similar bill. Good luck getting Speaker John Boehner who apparently only listens to his hard right now and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy to agree to even bringing the bill through committee and later the House floor.

But this bill is an excellent first step to finally ending marijuana prohibition that should’ve been ended with alcohol prohibition in the 1930s. And when that step is taken then America can take big steps to finally ending the failed War on Drugs. By treating drug addicts and users for what they are that is people who need help and get them treatment in rehab. And stop treating them like criminals. While you continue to punish drug dealers who pray on drug addicts who can’t control themselves. And end up ruining their own lives that costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

Posted in Originals, Slate Video | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Nation: Alex Luhn- ‘50,000 March in Moscow After The Killing of Opposition Leader Boris Nemtsov’



50,000 March in Moscow After The Killing of Opposition Leader Boris Nemtsov - Google Search

Source:The Nation– free speech in Russia.

“50,000 March in Moscow After the Killing of Opposition Leader Boris Nemtsov”

From The Nation

“Russia’s Interior Ministry says Boris Nemtsov, a leading opposition figure and former deputy prime minister, has been shot and killed near the Kremlin. (Feb. 27)”

Raw_ Prominent Russian Opposition Figure Killed

Source:Associated Press– free speech in Russia.

From the Associated Press

I don’t know enough about the Russian opposition or Russian opposition parties to say that there’s anything looking like a real democratic opposition there that looks liberal or social democratic or even center-right, but the fact that the Putin Administration assuming their security forces took out Boris Nemstov one of the opposition leaders in Russia, tells me at least that there is a democratic opposition there at least of some sort. Otherwise why kill someone who isn’t that big of a threat to you, who isn’t famous that won’t bring any attention to your administration?

As a Liberal Democrat myself I would love to see a real liberal democratic opposition in Russia. Something that looks like what Venezuela has that may at some point with the continued collapsing of the Venezuelan economy under anti-democratic socialist control be able to take over that country from the anti-democratic socialist Maduro Regime there.

I would love to see Russians taking to the streets and demanding to not have their country back, but have it in the first place. That builds a free society where all Russian citizens regardless of ethnicity and gender can succeed there. It is a country with an incredible amount of potential in people and resources.

America and Europe can help Russia develop their democratic opposition where it is liberal, conservative, social democratic or where three movements develop that are strong enough to take on Vlad Putin’s right-wing nationalist United Russia Party. The Putin Administration doesn’t believe in democracy certainly not liberal democracy and a free society where the Russian people would elect their own leaders and decide for themselves who represents them in Parliament and who is the President through federal elections that are free and open and where one party isn’t essentially guaranteed a large amount of power every time a so-called election is held.

Right now what America and Europe are doing to Russia as far as the Putin Administration is containing their military through economic sanctions. So Russia pays a heavy price for their invasion of Ukraine and any future invasion they may attempt. But these sanctions hurt the Russian people first who aren’t do very well under Putin because of his mis-management of the Russian economy.

But things like communication and giving the Russian opposition a voice inside of their economy with things like Voice of America would empower the democratic opposition to take on their government through political means.

Posted in Eurasia | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Tom Woods: Murray Rothbard: ‘How Interventionists Wrecked The Old Right’

Tom Woods

Source:Tom Woods– Talking about the Old Right.

“Murray Rothbard’s posthumously released book The Betrayal of the American Right is the subject of episode 349 of the Tom Woods Show…

From Tom Woods

There’s always been national security hawks in and outside of both the Democratic Party and Republican Party and people who not only see America’s role as defending democracy and defending the developed world, but expanding liberal democracy and freedom around the world, to the point that they believe America should knock off dictators and replace those regimes with American friendly regimes. But those people haven’t been in The White House before or have been running the Department of Defense, or have served as President and Vice President of the United States.

Thanks to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, as well as 9/11, the Republican Party went from people who were strong on defense and against communism and Islamism, to a party that believed it’s not good enough for America to just protect itself and their allies, but to make the world safe for liberal democracy outside of America and Europe. Which is how we got not just the War in Afghanistan in 2001-02, but the occupation of Afghanistan to try to build a democratic, responsible government there. And then the same thing with the War In Iraq in 2003.

Posted in Tom Woods | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

AEI: Frederick M. Hess- ‘The Right Way to Start Fixing No Child Left Behind’

NCLB
Source:American Enterprise Institute– with a look at the 2001 education reform law known as No Child Left Behind.

“The Student Success Act rolls back regulations while reflecting the need for a principled, limited federal role in schools.

On Friday, the U.S. House will vote on the Student Success Act (H.R. 5). The bill would revamp the Bush-era No Child Left Behind Act (formally known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act). It’s a promising bill and one that deserves the enthusiastic support of conservatives.

The Student Success Act (SSA) jettisons NCLB’s invasive system of federally mandated accountability and gives states the freedom to gauge school performance and decide what to do about poor-performing schools. It also puts an end to NCLB’s remarkable requirement that, as of 2014, 100 percent (!) of the nation’s students would be “proficient” in reading and math.

The SSA repeals the “highly qualified teacher” mandate, a bureaucratic paper chase whose most significant accomplishment was lending fuel to lawsuits attacking Teach For America (litigants had some success in California’s courts by arguing that TFA teachers failed to meet the “highly qualified” standard). It eliminates or consolidates 65 programs. It includes expansive new language intended to finally stop federal officials from pushing states to adopt Common Core (or any other particular set of academic standards).

The SSA is school-choice-friendly. It boosts funding for charter schools. In a significant win, it allows Title I funds to follow low-income children to the district school or charter school of a parent’s choice. This is a big deal. It doesn’t allow private-school choice — which would be even better — but the votes simply aren’t there in the House (much less the Senate) to let Title I funds flow to private schools. Meanwhile, allowing those funds to follow children to charter schools would be an important precedent.

The Student Success Act requires that states continue to regularly assess students in reading, math, and science and publicly report the disaggregated results, to the chagrin of some conservatives — but that’s misguided. It’s not inconsistent for conservatives to want Washington out of the nation’s schools while still keeping an eye on what taxpayers are getting for their federal education dollar. Moreover, competitive federalism and educational choice benefit when parents, voters, and taxpayers have comparable data on school outcomes that can inform their decisions. Finally, shorn of NCLB’s pie-in-the-sky accountability mandates, once-a-year tests will no longer distort schooling and infuriate parents in the way they have in recent years. Conservatives should be the party of transparency and citizen-fueled accountability, not of unaccountable federal largesse.”

From National Review

“Senator Burr discusses No Child Left Behind with teachers, superintendents, and experts in the education field during a Senate hearing.”

Fixing No Child Left Behind_ Supporting Teachers and School Leaders

Source:Senator Richard Burr– (Republican, North Carolina)

From Senator Richard Burr

There’s obviously not a lot that I agreed with President George W. Bush on and not much I liked about his presidency. And I even consider him to be the worst president of my lifetime. I actually like his father as president even though I would’ve voted against him twice if I was eligible to vote in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But one thing that I liked and respect about President G.W. Bush was his push for real education reform and push to deal with poverty in America.

President Bush saw education as the civil rights issue of the 21st Century and said things like the dangers of soft-bigotry of low expectations. Now, I don’t like No Child Left Behind, because as the late, great left-wing Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone said back in 2002 when the laws was past:“NCLB has mandates in it that Congress will never fund and will devastate states and localities that have to try to make up for the lack of funding to deal with these new federal mandates.” But at least the effort was there from the Bush Administration to deal with education and poverty in America.

A new federal education bill should be about fixing low-income and low-performing schools. Where a lot if not most of our low-income students attend school every year and eliminating the school to prison pipeline in America. Build off of Race to The Top and Common Core from the Obama Administration and reward schools that have high standards. And support things like public school choice including charter schools. And set up a new federal funding stream to help finance public schools in America. So states and localities can move away from regressive property taxes to finance schools. And so we can get adequate funding into low-income schools.

The teachers unions say that the problem with public education is that we underfund it and spend too much on corrections in America. And what they would do is essentially spend more money in a the current bad system that doesn’t produce enough high school graduates let along college graduates.

And the school choice crowd on the Right will say the problem with public education is that government is involved in the first place, at least at the federal level,

And with Libertarians saying the problem with public education is that it is public in the first place.

They are both wrong and with lets say the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party they are completely wrong.

Spending more money on a bad system will just make that system worst because the people in it won’t feel the need to reform. Eliminating federal funding and standards will mean low-income schools in America won’t even get the resources that they are currently getting for education. And they are already underfunded. Education is one of the top three sectors of the American economy and that alone makes to a federal issue. We have to have people with the skills to do well in America. And need to know what is working and what isn’t.

This is not about spending more money on a bad system or eliminating public education funding even at the federal level all together. It is about making public education as strong as it can in America with the feds playing their limited part and seeing that public schools are as good as they possibly can be:

You do that with more funding for low-income schools.

Paying good teachers more and well and encouraging highly qualified people to go into education and teach in low-income areas.

And giving parents the option to send their kids to the best school for their kids. Instead of the central office doing that for them. So public schools know they need to do a good job in order to get new students every year. So public education works for everyone in America who goes through it.

This is how I would fix public education in America, at least from the federal level, if I was in Congress today, or working at the U.S. Department of Education (which I believe shouldn’t even exist) or just happened to be President or even Vice President of the United States. But this is just me.

Posted in George W. Bush Presidency | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Hill: Kevin Cirilli: ‘New Democrats Looking to Strike Against The Warren Wing’

Centrist Dems ready strike against Warren wing _ The HillSource:The Hill– U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat, Massachusetts)

“Centrist Democrats are gathering their forces to fight back against the “Elizabeth Warren wing” of their party, fearing a sharp turn to the left could prove disastrous in the 2016 elections.

For months, moderate Democrats have kept silent, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) barbed attacks against Wall Street, income inequality and the “rigged economy” thrilled the base and stirred desire for a more populist approach.

But with the race for the White House set to begin, centrists are moving to seize back the agenda.

The New Democrat Coalition (NDC), a caucus of moderate Democrats in the House, plans to unveil an economic policy platform as soon as this week in an attempt to chart a different course.

“I have great respect for Sen. Warren — she’s a tremendous leader,” said Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), one of the members working on the policy proposal. “My own preference is to create a message without bashing businesses or workers, [the latter of which] happens on the other side.”

Peters said that, if Democrats are going to win back the House and Senate, “it’s going to be through the work of the New Democrat Coalition.”

“To the extent that Republicans beat up on workers and Democrats beat up on employers — I’m not sure that offers voters much of a vision,” Peters said.

Warren’s rapid ascent has highlighted growing tensions in the Democratic Party about its identity in the post-Obama era.

Caught in the crossfire is the party’s likely nominee in 2016, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose husband took the party in a decisively centrist direction during his eight years in office.

Former President Bill Clinton’s rise within the party had been aided by groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council, which believed that previous presidential nominees including Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis had run on platforms that were too far to the left, resulting in crushing defeats.

But the tensions from those long-ago fights are now tangible again. Progressives distrust Hillary Clinton and are pushing Warren to challenge her from the left in the presidential election, though Warren has repeatedly rebuffed their pleas.

Warren spokeswoman Lacey Rose said in a statement to The Hill that “Warren is a relentless fighter for priorities that will help level the playing field for middle-class families.”

Publicly, Democratic lawmakers are hesitant to discuss a growing rift.

{mosads}When asked about disagreements between centrists and the Warren wing, one Democratic member of Congress demurred.

“There’s no need to get me in trouble,” the lawmaker said, laughing. “I don’t need an angry phone call from Bill Clinton.”

Privately, moderate Democrats in the Clinton tradition say they have been working behind the scenes to change the party’s message.

Leaders at three centrist groups — the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the New Democrat Network (NDN) and Third Way — arranged a series of meetings with moderates after the disastrous midterm elections to “discuss the future of the party,” according to a source close to the NDC.

“Democrats ought to avoid the danger of talking about only redistribution and not enough about economic growth,” said PPI President and founder Will Marshall, who addressed House Democrats during their Philadelphia retreat in January. “Economic growth is a precondition to reducing inequality. You can’t redistribute wealth that you’re not generating.

“There’s a lot of sympathy for that view in the pragmatic-wing of the party,” he added.

Gabe Horwitz, director of Third Way’s economic program, said moderates have been arguing the case for rebranding the Democratic Party around “the middle class and middle-class prosperity.”

“In the last election, Democrats, as a party, offered a message of fairness. Voters responded, and they responded really negatively,” Horwitz said. “Democrats offered fairness, and voters wanted prosperity and growth.”

The policy proposal from The New Democrat Coalition will serve as a rejoinder to the progressive agenda unveiled last week by Warren and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.). A Facebook video of Warren discussing the plan has already generated more than 1 million views.

Cummings said progressive Democrats have “got to do a better job of informing not only our own members, but the people who sent them” about disparities in the economy. He said Warren plays a “major role” in shaping that message.

“She acts as a person who has earned the trust of the American people, and I think that more and more, you’re going to hear people listening to her,” Cummings said.

Even before Warren’s election to the Senate in 2012, the Democratic Party appeared to be moving in a more liberal direction.

President Obama’s victory over Clinton in the 2008 race was the harbinger of a broader shift, with the Democratic caucuses in the House and Senate now further to the left than in at least a generation.

One sign of the shift is the decline of the Blue Dog Coalition, a once-sizable bloc of conservative Democrats that is nearly extinct. More than two-dozen of its members were ousted from office in 2010.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who is viewed as a centrist, said the centrist strain of politician is declining and estimated that “there’s fewer than 100” left in Congress.

“We need more moderates and centrists in both parties,” Carper said. “Part of politics is the art of compromise.”

The fight over the future of the Democratic Party poses a real test for Clinton, who will need to keep the factions from breaking apart should she mount her expected run for the White House.

Democracy For America founder Howard Dean, who has backed Clinton for president, said Warren is “right on policy, but the rhetoric needs to be toned down.”

“Our program cannot be soak the rich — that’s a mistake and alienates middle class people. But on substance, the Warren wing is correct,” said Dean.

“The rhetoric about wealth creation needs to be scaled back because Americans like wealth creation,” he added. “The level playing field argument wins it for us. The reason you do not want to talk about ‘tax the rich’ is because when middle class people hear it, they hear ‘they’re going to raise our taxes.’ Democrats can’t do that.”

Warren has insisted she’s not running in 2016, and sources close to the senator strongly dispute that she’s left the door open to a run.

But she has done little to silence her supporters’ criticism of moderate Democrats.

During a public appearance in Springfield, Mass., in February, she said her supporters were trying to draft her for president because they’re “ready to fight back.”

In an appearance on MSNBC’s “Politics Nation” less than a week later, Warren said voters would have to “wait and see” whether Clinton is a progressive warrior.

“I want to hear what she wants to run on and what she says she wants to do — that’s what campaigns are supposed to be about,” she said.”

From The Hill

The Democratic Party really since the 1980s and perhaps even since the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson, has been a political party that has leaned left, but never left-wing. When you look at the left side of the American political spectrum, the Democratic Party has always at most been a center-left party.

The Democratic Party has always had the center-left, a progressive wing led by the Franklin Roosevelt’s, Harry Truman’s, and Lyndon Johnson’s of the world. But it’s always had a center-right as well from Thomas Jefferson, to John Kennedy in the 1960s, to Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary in the 1990s and today. And it’s always had a Far-Left (or left-wing, if you prefer) led by Henry Wallace in the 1940s, Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern in the 1960s and 70s, Ted Kennedy in the 1980s, Dennis Kucinich in the 1990s and 2000s, and now Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders today.

People who the mainstream media, including The Hill, call centrists or moderates, represent the center-right of the Democratic Party. The New Democrat Coalition in Congress, mostly in the House, but they’re the liberal (or classical liberal, if you prefer) wing of the Democratic Party, who believe in liberal democracy, property rights, fiscal responsibility, free trade, limited government, who are pro-business and labor and believe those two factions should work together and instead of being the opponents of the other.

New Democrats are called moderates or centrists because they’re to the right of the left-wing and even center-left of the Democratic Party, but to the left of the right-wing of the Republican Party. But they’re not moderates. We’re talking about people with a solid and real political philosophy but who are also pragmatic and even progressive in the sense that they believe in moving forward and real progress. But they’re called moderates because they’re either to the right or left of the partisan political faction of the two major parties and they consider real compromise to be treason.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Posted in Originals, The Hill | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

C-SPAN: Al Franken at The 1996 White House Correspondents Dinner

Going back about twenty-years here to 1996, this was I guess March of 1996, but they were already counting votes for the 1996 presidential election between President Bill Clinton and Leader Bob Dole. They just decided to wait eight months to tell everyone. Because this presidential election was already over because Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had to sit in the back of Air Force One. And threw a temper tantrum and stopped doing his impersonation of a middle age adult. And went back to being a thirteen-year old little boy who was just told he can’t have ice cream and cake for dinner. And as a result decided to shut down the U.S. Government.

The 1996 presidential election was one of the quickest in American history. Not as quick as 1984 with Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan. Where Vice President Mondale decided to concede the election at 3PM EST on Election Day, but still a very quick election. Bob Dole was stuck between Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton. And was trying to get Newt’s fat ass off of his back and take on the best politician in America at least since Ron Reagan. In a country where the economy was booming and where we were essentially at peace with the rest of the world. Other than being peacekeepers in the Balkans.

And I think that was the major motivations of these political investigations in the Republican Congress against President Clinton. Especially with Senator Al Damato’s Banking Committee investigation into the so-called Whitewater story. Bob Dole is a very good if not great man who has given a lot to America and one of the most distinguished people who has ever served in Congress and who accomplished a lot there in his thirty-five years in Congress. Including being Senate Republican Leader for eleven years. But he wasn’t going to beat Bill Clinton and all of Washington knew that including the Republican Leadership.
Al Franken

Posted in American Politics, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Merv Griffin Show: Jack Lemmon, Jane Fonda & Michael Douglas: China Syndrome (1979)

Jack Lemmon - Merv Griffin

Source:The Merv Griffin Show– Actor Jack Lemmon, talking about The China Syndrome, on Merv Griffin in 1979.

“Merv hosted a special show with all of the principal players from “The China Syndrome” a few weeks before its worldwide release in February of 1979. Jack Lemmon and Jane Fonda discuss their acting styles and generally fawn all over each other, then Michael Douglas and director James Bridges discuss getting the movie made and working with the great Jack Lemmon, who won Best Actor at the Cannes Film Festival for his role in the film. Merv Griffin had over 5000 guests appear on his show from 1963-1986. Footage from the Merv Griffin Show is available for licensing to all forms of media through Reelin’ In The Years Productions:Reelin in The Years.”

From the Merv Griffin Show

Jack Lemmon to me at least and I bet a lot of other people who knew him and are familiar with him would say was that he was a professional comedian who didn’t do standup, at least on a regular basis, but his sense of humor, timing and spontaneity when it came to humor and his improvisation was great and gave him comedic abilities. That are about as good as we’ve ever seen in Hollywood.

Jack Lemmon deserves to be in Comedy Hall of Fame (if there is such a thing) and you see a lot of that in this interview without a script. Merv Griffin giving him questions that aren’t even intended to have humorous responses. And Jack answering the questions seriously, but using humor to make his points.

I covered China Syndrome last night, but they really did a great movie and made a great movie about a subject that by 1978 and early 1979 I’m not sure a lot of Americans were thinking about and were worried about. Which was nuclear power and what could happen when nuclear power plants aren’t managed well enough and where profits are put ahead of safety. Which is about as progressive or socialist even as you’ll ever hear me talk.

But The China Syndrome was a movie that had to be done and let people know about this issue. And again Three Mile Island happens just a month after this interview was conducted in early 79.

China Syndrome wasn’t saying that nuclear power was bad or that corporations were bad. What they were talking about was the dangers of nuclear when it is not managed properly and the potential consequences that can come when it is not managed properly.

And in an area like Los Angeles with roughly fifteen-million people with four-million of the city and eight-millions in LA County that is a lot of people who could potentially be seriously injured with injuries that they’ll never recover from. If not killed if you have a major nuclear power accident. And that is what this movie was talking about.

Posted in Originals, Political Cinema | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Tonight Show With Jay Leno: Bill Maher (2012)

Bill Maher - Jay Leno

Source:Celebrity Universe– Real Time With Bill Maher, on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno, in 2012.

“Bill Maher on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno – Must watch this!”

Source:Celebrity Universe

Going back three years here so I have to dig deep into my memory bank and see what is still there. Oh wait 2012 was an election I lived through and was somewhat active in it as a voter and blogger. So I guess this shouldn’t be so difficult.

But the fact that someone like Rick Santorum could actually challenge someone like Mitt Romney tells you have screwed up the Republican Party is. If this was 1980 or 84 Rick Santorum would’ve been taken as seriously for president as Don Knotts or Rich Little or Artie Lang, some comedian like that. Because he would’ve been seen as a joke who probably needs to finish high school and grow up before he tries to do anything big.

If I’m Barack Obama I’m not hating my opposition, but getting down on my knees and thanking God everyday for the opposition that I do have. And writing them a check everyday for all the stupid and outrageous things they do and say.

Like with defunding of Homeland Security to use as an example. Because when the GOP’s support goes down, President Obama goes up and even if Americans regardless of race and party are not in love with the man as President. But he looks like God in comparison to especially the Tea Party wing of the GOP. Because Americans have basically said that: “Yeah, Barry is not great and makes mistakes. But look I’m glad he’s there instead of Ted Cruz or the House Tea Party.”

But with the Tea Party in power especially in the House of Representatives and with the economic recovery now feeling like it is real with solid economic and job growth and with the falling deficit and with President Obama having the country on his side against ISIS, he looks pretty good.

But without the Tea Party, perhaps President Obama is still Senator Obama sitting in on Senate committee hearings about agriculture spending or looking into the spending on school lunches and how much protein kids get from them. Which I’m sure is important, but a big step down from being President of the United States.

Posted in Originals, Real Time | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment