Reason: Anthony Fisher- Jessica Blake & Erik Jenson on The Exonerated: 'True Stories of The Innocent Sprung From Death Row'

Source:Reason Magazine- Talking about "The Exonerated."

"This play is neither left-wing nor right-wing. We don't have an agenda, our job is to stay out of the way and just let the people tell their stories," says Erik Jensen, co-author (with wife Jessica Blank) of The Exonerated, a one-act documentary play depicting the true-life experiences of exonerated Death Row prisoners. The Exonerated is celebrating its 10th anniversary with a limited run at the Culture Project in New York City.

Jensen and Blank talk with Reason TV's Anthony L. Fisher about how the play influenced former Gov. George Ryan's decision to commute the sentences of Illinois' Death Row prisoners to life imprisonment, the support of the Innocence Project, and what life is like for freed prisoners upon returning to society.

The play is directed by actor Bob Balaban and runs through December 2nd, 2012. The Exonerated features a rotating cast including Broadway regulars and well-known performers such as Stockard Channing, Brain Dennehy, Steve Earle, Marg Helgenberger, Christine Lahti, Delroy Lindo, Lyle Lovett, Michael McKean, Joe Morton, Chris Sarandon, Martin Short, and Trudie Styler. The cast also includes two exonerated prisoners playing themselves: Kerry Max Cook and Sunny Jacobs.

About 4.30 minutes. Produced by Anthony L. Fisher. Camera by Jim Epstein."

Source: Reason Magazine

Anyone whose pro-death penalty and I’m one of them, should be in favor of a long appeals process. To make sure that we get the right people, so to speak and not rush to put to death the wrong people. Not an appeals process that extends the process indefinitely, but that allows inmates and lawyers to bring new appeals, as long as they can bring new evidence that suggests that they may be innocent. So we are always executing the right people and not putting to death the wrong people.

That is the only way to make sure that the death penalty can be applied fairly. Putting the wrong person to death even by accident, whether you’re talking about manslaughter, or giving the wrong person the death penalty, is not a mistake that you can take back. I would be fine with a short appeals process without the death penalty. Because if the convicted murderers lawyers truly believe their client is innocent, they can still work on the case. And if they find evidence that proves their client is innocent, they can always present that evidence and open that case back up.

Every pro-death penalty person, especially if they consider themselves to be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time, should be in favor of a death penalty case like this. Because it makes their case for the death penalty better. That there isn’t a rush to put someone to death. Because they know if the person is guilty they’ll never leave prison anyway. And it gives opponents of the death penalty less evidence and a smaller case to use against the death penalty. And they would have a harder time saying that innocent people have been put to death because of the death penalty. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.

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

The Daily Buzz: Deidre Hall and Lynne Bowman

Source: Deidre Hall- Deidre Hall & Lynne Bowman on The Daily Buzz.

"Days of Our Lives star and author Deidre Hall and her friend and coauthor Lynne Bowman discuss their books and their appearance at the Southern Women's Show in Orlando on the Daily Buzz, October 12 2012."

From  The Daily Buzz

Deidre Hall, at least to me is the ultimate American Sweetheart. She’s gorgeous yes, but she is so freakin cute, baby-face adorable really and still is, now in her mid sixties. She doesn’t look much older now more than five years ago when I started watching the reruns of the soap operas as night. Because I had to work during the day.

Everything Deidre does, even the way she sits down and moves around or even talks on the phone and of course the way she speaks, makes me want to go, aw! Because she so sweet and has been one of the top soap actress’s, for what thirty years now. And has been on one of the top three soap operas ever since. Days of Our Lives, to go along with General Hospital, which is the best one of the bunch. And The Young and The Restless as well. And she’s just as sweet and funny in real life apparently, as she is on Days. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.

VH1: Cher- If I Could Turn Back Time: Live at VH1 Divas (1999)

Source:VH1- Cher, performing at VH1 Divas in 1999.

"This is a mix of two appearances by Cher. The first is at the 1989 MTV Video Music Awards and the second is at 1999 VH1 Diva's Live. Please comment."

From Veuve

Source:VH1- Cher, performing at VH1 Divas in 1999.

The only Cher song that I like and perhaps because of the candor in it. A song about regret and I think it was about her relationship with Sunny Bono, a great classic rock song. 

This performance was part of VH1's Divas series that they did annually in the late 1990s and early 2000s. No idea if they still do that, but Cher whatever you think of her certainly qualifies as a diva. Great voice, great personality, great body, certainly very entertaining. And she's lived a hell of a life and with comes with that comes a lot of regret. 

Things you wish you shouldn't have said and done and perhaps got caught up in the moment and took out your anger on someone. "If I Could Turn Back Time", again great song, but it is sort of like saying: "If only I owned a helicopter, I would be able to avoid rush hour traffic everyday." People aren't tested by what they would have changed if they could go back. You learn from mistakes and then move on. 

We are all tested by how we react and carry ourselves in the moment. The better we do in real-time, the fewer mistakes that we'll make as we move on.  

You can also see this post at The Action Blog, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger.

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

Reason Magazine: Lisa Kennedy- 'The Cast of Atlas Shrugged: Talks Film's Impact'

Source:Reason Magazine- talking about Atlas Shrugged The Movie.

"The book was incredibly informative for me," says actress Samantha Mathis who plays Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged Part II, "in terms of figuring out [Dagny's] backstory and where she came from, and why she believed what she believed, and what her relationships were."

ReasonTV correspondent Kennedy spoke with Mathis and other cast members at the film's Hollywood Premiere on Oct. 5 to find out how they connected with their characters and the themes portrayed in the movie.

Atlas Shrugged Part II, the second of three films based on Ayn Rand's controversial 1957 novel, hits theaters nationwide on Friday, October 12, 2012. (For more information on the film, go to:Atlas Shrugged Movie." 

Source:Reason Magazine

Atlas Shrugged (written by Ayn Rand) reminds me of someone who I guess knows the world is about to explode and they're going to die anyway and basically says: "What the hell, I have nothing to lose at this point. I can do whatever I want, because I'm going to die anyway. So thats exactly what I'm going to do." The world is literally on fire and I'm writer and I can write anything I want. Because no one is going to read it anyway. And even if someone does read it, no one is going to remember it, because everyone is going to be dead." 

Atlas Shrugged, is a complete and total fantasy with really no base in reality in it. And looks like something that was written by someone who perhaps had months to live, who was a writer and decides to write whatever they want at this point. With no editor to answer to, because no one is going to read it anyway.

Atlas Shrugged, is essentially a fantasy about what can happen when the private sector and a capitalist economy is regulated. It's not about what can happen when a developed, or highly developing country with a strongly growing an educated middle class, where poverty is shrinking, is taken over by Marxist revolutionaries, that decides to outlaw political parties, private property, starts detaining people who oppose them and nationalizes industries. We already know that story because we've seen it before. Lebanon comes to mind and perhaps you could make a case for Cuba as well. That would be a good book and movie and it would sell well if was done right. 

Atlas Shrugged (written by Ayn Rand in 1957) there hasn't been an example of a regulated private enterprise economy that has collapsed just because it is regulated, since that book was written.

Atlas Shrugged, which I'm sure is very clever and well-done and written by Ayn Rand, that shouldn't be a surprise. But as a movie it sounds like bad sci-fi movie from the Sci-Fi Channel. Every developed country in the world operates under some form of rule of law. That government is not there to tell people who to live their own lives and control our movement's, or anything like that. 

There isn't a single developed country in the world that is a Marxist state, or some type of authoritarian state from the Far-Right. But all developed countries do regulate how people interact with each other and regulate the economy. Not to run business's, but to protect customer's and workers. 

Economies can be over regulated and when that happens they struggle. But they all have some type of regulatory state that is there to protect workers and consumers from predators. And Ayn Rand lived in a great developed country like that for a very long time, that being America. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger.

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

Liberty Pen: Christopher Hitchens- 'In Defense Of Unpopular Speech'

Source:Liberty Pen- British Socialist columnist Christopher Hitchens, actually making a great case for free speech. Not your typical Socialist. (To put it mildly)

"Popular speech does not need Constitutional protection. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen 

I don't agree with the late great writer Christopher Hitchens all the time. I'm a Liberal, he's more of a Democratic Socialist, a bit left to me on economic policy (to put it mildly) but we do tend to agree on some of these key social issues, like civil liberties, War on Drugs, and yes, free speech. 

But Freedom of Speech is exactly that: the freedom to speak, to go along with our property rights, are the most important freedoms and constitutional rights that we have in America. The freedom to speak is exactly that: the right to speak whether it's popular or not.

Since we are a liberal democracy, we've decided long ago, that we are good enough and intelligent enough as a nation, that we can have good intelligent tolerant thinkers. But that we can also have haters and ignorant people as well, because we are a good and intelligent enough as a people to figure out what's hate and what's not and what should be taken seriously and what shouldn't be. That we don't need big government to make these decisions for us. What we should and be able to listen to and what we shouldn't listen to. 

This is something that Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians figured out a long time ago, but that today's so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) so-called and Christian-Conservatives (but what are they conserving and they Bible are they reading) have never grasped, who believe government needs to be strong enough to be able to protect its people, even at times from themselves.

The Islamic film, that was perceived very negatively a few weeks ago by Muslims and so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) but of course Christian-Nationalists view the film as free speech, because they like and agree with the film (but thats a different story) is a perfect example of what free speech is designed to protect: the right for people to be able to speak their mind, even as small as their minds and intelligence level may be. As long as they are not labeling people, threatening people, or inciting violence. 

What this anti-Muslim movie essentially does, is layout what the creators of this movie feel: "Islam is bad and so-forth, that Muhammad was a bad person and so-forth." But it wasn't calling for Muslims to be killed and beat up and so-forth. It was a negative if not bigoted view of Islam, but not calling for violence on Muslims. And thats the difference between free speech and threatening speech. Something we don't put up with as a nation. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger. 

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

The Phil Donahue Show: Ayn Rand (1979)

Source:Anarchy- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on Phil Donahue in 1979.

“Phil Donahue: I am very pleased to present a woman that a number of people who have said “Atlas Shrugged changed my life. The Fountain Head changed my life.” Here’s a woman who is read by millions around the world. She may be our most-debated philosopher. She identifies that to which she adheres as “objectivism.” We’ll talk about it. We care very much about your sharing with us, your feelings about this most-interesting lady, a warm human being who has a lot to say and comes straight at everything she says. I’m pleased to present Ayn Rand. Miss Rand.

Ayn Rand is here and it’s about time we said hello after hearing so much about you when you’re not really altogether that available to the media. I know you do a radio show and there have been other occasions, but let’s see what I can do here in trying to help the world understand, those who may not be as familiar with your work.”

From Anarchism 

“A rare public appearance by Ayn Rand in the 1970’s. She’s in her 70’s in this video and her first public appearance since husband Frank O’Connor’s death.”

Source:Phil Donahue Show- Author Ayn Rand, being interviewed by Phil Donahue in 1979.

From Steve Packard 

This is a classic interview, because you had two very intelligent people with lots of followers, who both had a message to deliver, but came from very different sides of the political spectrum:

Ayn Rand, being a Libertarian/Objectivist and Phil Donahue being a more of a Social Democrat philosophically, but not a Communist.. Two people with very different beliefs on what the role of government is. Especially the role of the Federal Government:

Ayn, whose see government’s role as basically doing nothing more, then to basically protecting our freedom and constitutional rights. And Phil Donahue, believing that government should be doing a lot for its people. That there’s only so much we can expect that the private enterprise can do for the people.

The best thing that I could probably compare this interview with today, it would be like Ralph Nader interviewing Ron Paul, or vice-versa. Two men that are actually pretty similar when it comes to social freedom and civil liberties. But are very different in what they see the role for the Federal Government as it relates to the economy:

Ron Paul basically believing that people should be able to keep and spend as much money as they make and be able to spend it as they see it, as long as they aren’t spending that money hurting people. Ordering hits and that sort of thing. And Ralph Nader, believing that a country is a community and to be a member of this community, we should all have to pay a price for it. To make this community as strong as it can be. Similar to Rand-Donahue. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.

ESPN: Behind The Fights Documentary- Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson: February, 1990

Source:ESPN- Mike Tyson-Buster Douglas documentary.

"The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame... is a series that examines the athletes, coaches, front office personnel and even fans who over the years have been blamed for either a team's failure, their individual failure, a bad trade, a bad draft pick, or the demise of a franchise. The shows begin by explaining why that individual or team has been blamed over the years and then it peels away the layers between fact and fiction and count down the Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame them. This fast-paced series is a mix of documentary storytelling and the entertaining elements that make countdown shows fun to watch...  

From Silver Samurai

I saw the James Douglas-Mike Tyson World Heavyweight Championship fight as a fourteen year old in junior high on HBO in February, 1990. Actually I saw the replay of it, after I heard the shocking news that James Buster Douglas defeated Iron Mike Tyson for the World Heavyweight Championship. It was shocking, because Mike Tyson look unbeatable for about five years from 1985 until 1990, holding the WHC for about four years. He just didn't look unbeatable, but he was destroying his opponents.

Iron Mike beat former world champions, but not just beating them, but destroying them. Like Frank Bruno, Mike Spinks, Larry Holmes, Tony Tucker, James Smith, and others. All guys who were world champions before and in Larry Holmes case one of the top 2-3 heavyweights and world champions of all- time. 

With Buster Douglas, you had a very talented fighter: tall, big, strong, accurate, with excellent boxing skills, but wasn't very disciplined. He was the perfect fighter to beat someone like Mike Tyson, because of his awesome size. And the ability to use it, he was able to keep Tyson off of him, by hitting him hard enough to keep him off and go to work on him.

Going into this fight, of course James Douglas beating Mike Tyson is not only one of the biggest upsets of the 1990s, but of all-time. But looking back at it now, James Douglas was simply good enough to beat Tyson. He had the skills and size to do it, as well as the training. 

Most of Iron Mike's opponents went at Tyson by trying to tie him up, to prevent Mike from throwing Mike's bombs at you. But what Buster did was a different strategy. He figured out the best way to keep Iron Mike off of you was by hitting him hard with a big jab, going on offense forcing Mike to take punishment as well, which set up Buster's other punches. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger.