HBO: Ronald Reagan (2011)

Source:HBO- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) I believe his daughter Maureen is in the background.

Source:The FreeState 

"Reagan examines the enigmatic career of one of the revered architects of the modern world—icon, screen star, and two-term president Ronald Reagan. This HBO documentary, which premiered this year on Reagan's 100th birthday, traces the 40th president's meteoric rise from B-movie actor to General Electric salesman to California Governor to the most powerful office in the world, examining how an impassioned anti-Communism fueled an unexpected but seismic political career, one whose reverberations still shape Americanlife. It also explores how a self-proclaimed group of modern-day Reagan acolytes have come to repackage his legacy, seeking to turn a deeply textured human being into an oversimplified marble icon for their own contemporary political purposes. Who is selling Ronald Reagan and to what end?" 

From Roco Films

I just saw the Ronald Reagan documentary last night on HBO and I thought they did a pretty good job. Jumped through his California governorship, focused on the student protests at Berkley and his brief presidential run in 1968. Yes, Ron Reagan ran twice for president before being elected. I would've like to of seen more of Governor Reagan and see what type of Governor he was, even though I already have a pretty good idea from other films I've seen. I would've like to have seen how he worked with the Democratic legislature. How he defeated Governor Brown in 1966, how he got reelected in 1970.

I would also like to know how Governor Reagan closed the budget deficit, Welfare reform, all issues he focused on as Governor of California. As well as how he dealt with President Nixon in the 1970s. The fact he considered himself to be a Libertarian up until 1975 and then became more of a Classical Conservative like Barry Goldwater. His failed 1976 Presidential run against President Gerry Ford, what he did when out of office before he announced he was going to run for president in 1979. His involvement in 1978 California Proposition that would have allowed California employers to fire homosexuals because of their sexuality, that Reagan came out against, when he knew he was going to need the Religious-Right to be elected president in 1980.

There are so many aspects about Ron Reagan, that doing an hour and forty-five minute film about him, doesn't really do justice as far as telling the story of Ron Reagan the man. Someone because of his conservatism, couldn't win national office as a Republican today. The Religious-Right, as well as the Tea Party Nationalists wouldn't allowed that to happen. They would've treated him like Ron Paul. Accusing him of being a Liberal or Libertarian, which is one reason why he still remains one of our most popular former president's. Because except for maybe leftists, who still go out of their way to speak against him, he has broad support.

Conservatives love Reagan because he's against big government across the board, for the most part. George Will being an excellent example of that. Libertarians like him because he believed in low taxes and didn't want to tell Americans how to live their lives. Liberals such as myself and others respect him because he's a real Conservative and could work with Democrats. Centrists like him because he made government work and was practical. Reagan has support almost across the board. 

What you get with the HBO film, is a look at certain targeted aspects of his life, intended to appeal to a broad audience of people. Who don't follow politics and history very closely and feel the need to be entertained, which is one reason why this movie focused a lot on his Hollywood career and his two marriages, as well as his kids and Nancy. And there should be a movie about him, which is how LBJ and FDR have been covered where you get a big picture.

NonPlayer Zealot: 'Wilt Chamberlain On Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bill Russell'

Source:NonPlayer Zealot- NBA great Wilt Chamberlain being interviewed by ESPN's Roy Firestone, in 1987.

"With Roy Firestone.  Wilt's takes on basketball career, sex, personal attitudes, race, Bill Russell, politics, etc.  Big Wilt passed away on Oct 12, 1999.  RIP." 

From NonPlayer Zealot

I have a lot of respect for Wilt Chamberlain and not only consider him to be the 2nd best center in NBA history, but one of the top 5-10 NBA players ever. But I disagree with him about fellow NBA great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and the era that he played in. 

I think Wilt would've been a great NBA player and center in any era. But he dominated the NBA before it was common for NBA teams to even have very good centers, let alone great NBA centers. 

The NBA in the 1960s was very similar to the game today in the sense that it was a game that was dominated by swingmen, guys who would play either the 2nd guard or swing forward, or both positions. A lot of great NBA players back then were in the 6'4-6'6 range and weight maybe 200 pounds and in many cases weighed less than 200 pounds. Players like John Havlicheck, and Elgin Baylor. And where centers were like 6'8-6'9, maybe ever shorter and not very muscular. 

And then comes 7'1, 270 pound, all muscle Wilt Chamberlain, who was also very quick and well-skilled, who dominated the NBA simply because he was one of maybe 3 great NBA centers back then, where most of them were 3-5 inches shorter than Wilt and maybe 50 pounds lighter than Wilt. 

Go up to the 1970s and 1980s where every NBA team has at least one 7 footer and if not a 7 footer, their centers were 6'10 or 6'11 and where a lot of the NBA teams had at least one good big man who was an inside threat, who rebounded and maybe had both a good or great center and power forward and maybe they could bring another quality big man off the bench as well, teams like the Boston Celtics. 

To me Kareem is the best center ever, if not best player ever, because he dominated the NBA at its best, where the great teams in his era, were really great teams, that were loaded with talent and not just big men, but really at every position. 

Like I said, Wilt would be a great player in any era and perhaps the best player from any era. But he dominated the NBA when the NBA was fairly weak at center and power forward positions. Which is a big reason why I have Kareem ranked ahead of him. 

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Charles Moore: 'The Legacy of Margaret Thatcher'

Source:Hoover Institution- Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson.

Source:The FreeState

"One of Britain's most distinguished journalists, Charles Moore is a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers and of the Spectator magazine. Moore is also the authorized biographer of the Right Honorable Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, better known as Margaret Thatcher... 

From Uncommon Knowledge 

The situation that Margaret Thatcher inherited from Socialist Labor Party in Britain in 1979, is not much different from the situation that Ronald Reagan inherited from the Democratic Party in America economically in 1981. There were some differences politically, but both economies were in bad shape. High unemployment, low economic and job growth, both Thatcher and Reagan inheriting economic messes in 1979 and 81 respectively.

There were political differences, back in the 1970s. The UK Labor Party, was more of a Marxist Socialist Party, that believed in state ownership of the economy. At least to certain extents and there were British industries, that were owned by the U.K. Government. The U.S. Democratic Party, is made up of Liberal and Progressives and have Democratic Socialists. Progressive Democrats in the Party that believe in democratic socialism. Which is different from Marxism, but both parties have their big government supporters as it relates to economics and they were both in charge back then. But both countries were down and weren’t doing very well and were both looking for a change politically and both got it, with Thatcher and Reagan.

So in Britain, what Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did and what the new Labor Party under Tony Blair continued in the late 1990s, but added their own touch to it, was bring more economic freedom to Britain. Privatized more British industries, cut taxes and cut spending and freed a lot of Brits to live their own lives. One thing I respect about the British Conservative Party, that unlike the Republican Party, is that they are a real Conservative Party. Not a Neoconservative Party. They truly believe in conserving individual freedom, not subtracting from it, or trying to tell people how to live their lives. The British Conservatives, didn’t bring in conservative economics, with authoritarian policies on Social Issues. They wanted to expand British freedom and give more Brits the ability to chart their own course in life, and not being dependent on the state for their lively hood.

That Thatcher Revolution, worked so well in Britain, that when Tony Blair was running and eventually elected Prime Minster in 1997 with the Labor Party, he did not run on Marxism. He didn’t try to convince Brits that capitalism doesn’t work and they need to go back to nationalizing British industries and return to the 1970s. What he did was to run on a different type of capitalism, that would expect Brits who were physically and mentally capable of working full-time, would be expected to be self-sufficient in life. And that even if you were unemployed and uneducated, that you would still be expected to work and be self-sufficient. And that the state will help you get the skills you need to be self-sufficient if you need it. Thats the legacy of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. 

First Race TV: 'Henry Hill Dead- Goodfellas Mobster Dies At 69'

Source:First Race TV- Goodfella Henry Hill: dead at 69.

"Henry Hill, the low-level mobster turned FBI informant who was the basis of Martin Scorsese's seminal 1990 film "Goodfellas," has died at age 69, reports TMZ.

"He had a heart attack around the 27th of May, and he went into the hospital and it was really touch-and-go for a long time," Lisa Caserta, Hill's long-time girlfriend, told the New York Post. As she told TMZ.
Hill's "heart gave out."

Born in Brooklyn, New York in 1943, Hill's early life and rise up the mafia food chain was recalled with great detail in Nicholas Pileggi's 1986 book Wiseguy, an at-times first person account told in Hill's words. He became involved with the mob at age 12 and took his first arrest at age 16. In 1978, at 35, he participated in the Lufthansa heist at Kennedy Airport, the then-most expensive robbery in U.S. history. It earned Hill and his conspirators over $5 million.

After the Luftansa heist and a subsequent drug arrest, Hill became an FBI informant and testified against his former colleagues. He was placed in the Witness Protection Program with his wife, Karen.

"I get to live the rest of my life like a shnook," Hill famously said at the end of Wiseguy.

Pileggi and Scorsese adapted Wiseguy for the screen, and the result was "Goodfellas," one of the most quoted and lauded films of the last 25 years. Ray Liotta played Hill in the film, while Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci (who won an Oscar for his work) and Paul Sorvino co-starred as mobsters.

In the years after the events depicted in "Goodfellas," Hill would battle drug, alcohol and legal problems. He was arrested in Missouri in 2009 for drunken disturbance."

From First Race TV

The phrase living the life has been thrown out a lot the last ten years or so. The hip hop group Black Eye Peas, uses it in one of their songs. But thats the best way to describe former mobster, who never really completely gave up his criminal, career but was no longer an official Italian Gangster after he became an FBI informant and ratted out a lot of his former associates and went into the Federal Witness Protection Program.

But thats exactly how Henry Hill lived his life, the life of an Italian gangster, who basically had just two goals in life: make a lot of money, not really earning any of it legally and what he did make, blew a lot of it. And have a good time. Work hard so to speak if you want calling being a mobster work and play hard and enjoy life as much as possible, after work hours. Enjoying his fruits of his labor so much, that a book was written about him in 1986, which led to the move Goodfellas in 1990. As far as I'm concern the best Italian mob movie of all time because of its accuracy, the great humor that was constant in the movie and of course the great cast: Robert Di Niro, Joe Pesci, Paul Servino, Ray Liotta, Loraine Bracco, and many others.

Henry Hill really did live the crazy life and was very successful at it. Doing one short stretch in prison in the 1970s, for heisting the JFK Airport in New York. Still considered one of the most successful heists in American history. As far as the people actually being able to pull it off, they got caught later but actually managed to obtain what they were searching for and made a lot of money doing it. Henry Hill tried to play himself as a hard-working family man, who worked for a construction union in New York City, with a beautiful wife, which is what he had and a couple of kids.

But Henry actually never set out to be much of a husband or father as far as actually being there for his family. Even though he did provide for them pretty well financially. You know, from the money he made as a mobster, he was a collector as well as hitman, but only whacked bad people who would've killed innocent people or stole from innocent people. Not justifying that, just explaining it.

I'm going to miss Henry Hill from this perspective, because of how interesting he was. To the point that one of my favorite movies of all time, Goodfellas was made based on his life and the work he put into that movie as a consultant, to make that movie as accurate and as entertaining as it was. And how honest he's been about his life, that allowed for the great book and films to be made about him.

MLB Productions: 'Red Sox vs. Yankees - The Ultimate Rivalry (2006)'

Source:Amazon- from MLB Productions.

"From Babe Ruth to Bucky Dent to being down three-games-to-none in the 2004 ALCS, there is no rivalry in all of sports that can match the intensity of the one between the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees.

The new millennium has brought renewed vigor to this annual summer showdown — so steeped in history — as now it truly is a rivalry between two equal foes. Everything about the new age of this rivalry can be found from the years 2003 to 2005, and Red Sox vs. Yankees: The Ultimate Rivalry does just that, with superior access, exclusive interviews, incredible footage and players wired for sound.

There is no rivalry in baseball quite like the one that takes place in the shadow of The Bleacher Creatures and The Green Monster. And there is no more in-depth coverage of the 21st century version of this rivalry, than Red Sox vs. Yankees: The Ultimate Rivalry.

Packed with Special Features!

Red Sox Fan? Let Terry Francona walk you through the rivalry!

Yankees Fan? Joe Torre would be happy to give you his side of the story!

With the push of a button, choose your narrator!" 

From Amazon 

"The History of the Red Sox-Yankees Rivalry from 1918 to 2006" 

Source:Movie Buff Guy- Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek and Yankees SS Derek Jeter.

From Movie Buff Guy

What makes the Boston Red Sox New York Yankee rivalry so great, well, there are several reasons and there would have to be, for it to be the great sports rivalry that it is: 

One (and not to do this in any order) you are talking about two of the most winningest franchises in Major League Baseball, as far as games won and the amount of big games they have played in. 

Another one would be location: two big Northeastern cities, both two of the biggest markets and cities in the country and they are reasonably close by, somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 miles. So the fans travel to see their team play in the other teams ballpark, which just adds to the fan atmosphere, with fans from both teams yelling at each other. One side will start cheering and the other side will start booing, just to shut them up, sort of like going to a Eagles-Redskin game, similar fan atmosphere, but the teams dislike each other even more. 

And of course the Yankees and Red Sox both play in the AL Eastern Division, which makes their games even more important, because they directly effect each other. And of course Hall of Fame players that have played for both franchises, Babe Ruth obviously being the most famous one.

As I've said before, great rivalries only happen between good teams and they are generally great teams. And their games have to be important, not just between the two teams but the division, conference and league they play in. They have to effect division or conference races, making the games important. I realize the Chicago Cubs-St. Louis Cardinals Rivalry is supposed to be great, but only the Cardinals have been consistent winners throughout their history. The Cubs are known for losing and blowing big opportunities.

The Yankee-Red Sox is great because you have two franchises that have played each other for over 100 years now. That are fairly close by, where New Yorkers and Bostonians don't like each other to begin with. Similar to how New Yorkers and Philadelphians feel about each other. And the Giants-Eagles Rivalry is another great rivalry for similar reasons and they are both winners with great traditions.

Ginoong Kamote: 'NBA at 50: 1970s The NBA vs. the ABA'

Source:Ginoong Kamote- the NBA finally seeing competition in professional basketball with the ABA.

"The American Basketball Association also succeeded in signing a number of major stars, including Julius Erving, in part because it allowed teams to sign college undergraduates. The NBA expanded rapidly during this period, one purpose being to tie up the most viable cities. From 1966 to 1974, the NBA grew from nine franchises to 18; the New Orleans Jazz (now in Utah) came aboard in 1974. Then, following the 1976 season, the leagues reached a settlement that provided for the addition of four ABA franchises to the NBA, raising the number of franchises in the league at that time to 22. The franchises were the San Antonio Spurs, Denver Nuggets, Indiana Pacers and New York Nets. Some of the biggest stars of this era were Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Rick Barry, Dave Cowens, Julius Erving, Walt Frazier, Artis Gilmore, George Gervin, Dan Issel and Pete Maravich." 

From Ginoong Kamote 

This might sound strange, but I don't think the National Basketball Association survives the 1970s without the American Basketball Association providing the competition that it did and taking players and coaches with them and even forcing the NBA to change it's style and modernize it's game. 

A lot of times competition can destroy a traditional business that's already established, because the new game in town (so to speak) is better and fresher and the establishment product is not able to adjust and goes out of business. But the ABA actually made the NBA better by forcing it to compete and improve its product to the point that they generally merged and the ABA became part of the NBA. Which was probably the ABA's original goal anyway. 

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- 'The Politics of Hollywood With Andrew Breitbart'

Source:Hoover Institution- interviewing right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart.

"Identified as one of the ten most important people in the media that nobodys ever met, Andrew Breitbart details why leftward-leaning Hollywood is dangerous for America and why the people who run it are uninteresting, vitriolic, and vicious.  Segueing from Hollywood to the Internet, Breitbart explores why the right dominates talk radio and the left seems to do better on the Internet and how the decline of print media is changing the nature of the national political conversation." 

From the Hoover Institution

Is there is fascism amongst leftists (Far-Leftists, actually) in America, with political celebrities who are famous for their ability to entertain who have used their fame to voice their politics and who view people disagree with them, as corporatists or slaves to the Military Industrial Complex or whatever, as well as there are fascists amongst Leftists who work in politics for a living, again who look down on people who aren't exactly like them, who look at life differently, who didn't grow up in the Northeast or San Francisco or Los Angeles or whatever? Sure ! But thats been around for a hundred years or so.

But there's also Fascists amongst people in the Tea Party, who are still stuck in the 1950s . Who have a very narrow view of America and if you don't share their views, you are considered Un-American as well. 

The entertainment industry as far as what they show and say publicly, leans left as far as how they talk about America and American society. And tend to publicly support leftist Democrats when they run for office. But privately, you are going have a helluva hard time finding people who love American capitalism, liberal democracy, and even America itself, then Hollywood entertainers and executives. Just look at how they live and the wealth that they've created for themselves and the people that they work left.

People can talk like 1960s hippie-leftists who want to change the world and take down the man (the supposed white man) and replace American, liberal democratic, federal, form of government all they want and replace it with some type of socialist, collectivist state. But people can only be who they actually are and believe what they actually believe. A lot of the 1% that American leftists like to talk bad about live in Hollywood, California and the rest of the Los Angeles area, as well as in Manhattan New York. All of these supposed American leftists, are 1 percenters who actually love America. And would just like to see America work for more people, but not try to take down our American government and replace it with some type of socialist state. Because they know that would ruin their way of life and lifestyle.

This is something that Andrew Breitbart (RIP) and people on his side of the political spectrum, don't tend to understand. That there's fascism on the fringes of both sides and if you don't fit into one of the boxes, you are so bad as a person, that you don't even deserve to be listened too. 

If your view of America is only what you see from Hollywood, then your view will be a fantasy for the most part. Because a lot what you see from Hollywood, is from some Hollywood director or producer's, view of how they want America to be. Or how they want people to think this is how they want America to be.

But if your view of America, is only what you see from a fundamentalist religious view that all of America is in the Heartland (meaning between San Francisco and New York) that all Americans go to church every week, that we all religious, that we all come from two-parent families, dad goes to work, mom stays home and raises the kids, homosexuals and minorities are kept silent, nothing but family programming on TV, with Family TV Night etc, then you also have a narrow view of America as well.

Hollywood to me is about entertainment. I watch movies and other things to be entertained and from time to time you see something from Hollywood thats produced about true life. A movie based on a true story (to use as an example) but I don't take the politics of Hollywood very seriously. These people are entertainers and tend to look at things the way they want to. And how they believe the world should be. Not how it is.