Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Friday, August 29, 2014

Jim Heath: CBS News Election 1982 Highlights


Source:The New Democrat

The recession of 1981-82 was huge and cost Congressional Republicans especially in the House a lot of seats. House Republicans lost something like thirty-five seats. Going from the low 190s in the House to the upper 150s where they were going into the 1980 general election. So House Republicans especially lost everything that they picked up in 1980 in 1982. Similar to House Democrats that lost everything that they picked up in 2006 and 08 in 2010. Senate Republicans managed to retain control of the Senate after 1982, but they lost a couple of seats as well.

Merv Griffin Show: Jane Fonda and Roger Vadim Interview (1967)

Source:Merv Griffin Show- French filmmaker Roger Vadim and Hollywood Goddess Jane Fonda, on The Merv Griffin Show, in 1967.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Jane Fonda and her husband, French director Roger Vadim, are interviewed by Merv Griffin in January of 1967 while promoting their film “The Game is Over (La Curee)”. They talk about their farm in France, Jane’s cooking, and Vadim’s experiences filming iconic women.

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." 

From the Merv Griffin Show 

I would be lying if I said I had any idea who the hell Roger Vadim is other then what I got out of this video. And I only like to lie when I’m in trouble. You know being questioned by police, on the stand being cross-examined. And if you are wondering how I get away with that. I cross my fingers when I’m put under oath and say: “I do”.

But Jane Fonda is very well-known and for good reasons. A beautiful baby-face adorable actress with a very quick wit and sense of humor. As well as intelligence that allows for her to play all sorts of characters that her career indicates that she has. 

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Phil Donahue Show: Jane Fonda Anti-War Speech & Interview On The Vietnam War


Source:The New Democrat

Jane Fonda at her highest peak as an anti-war New-Left political activist. Calling members of the American military criminals, murderers, including the President of the United States Richard Nixon and perhaps President Nixon's predecessor Lyndon Johnson as well. The wing of the American Left the New Left people who are called McGovernites for their support of U.S. Senator George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign took over the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s. And gave the Democratic Party a real bad name for over twenty-years.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

David Von Pein: U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy Townhall - April 19, 1968



Source:The New Democrat

If you listen to Senator Robert F. Kennedy talk about the Vietnam War in 1968, it is not that different from how Barack Obama sounded about the Iraq War when he was running for president in 2007-08. And how President Obama now sounds about the Iraq War now. "We can help and we should help where we can, but at the end of the day this is their country and their war and they need to fight it and win it if they can". Just replace Vietnam with Iraq and you have two different men from two different generations talking about two different wars, but they sound very similar.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

The Morton Downey Jr. Show: Jerry Falwell & The Christian Right


Source:The New Democrat

In the late 1980s starting in around 1987 I believe the TV evangelism was taking a big hit in America because of scandals that some of their TV reverends were under. Essentially preaching against what they were in favor of, but not in public, but in their own private lives. With Jim Swaggart it was about prostitutes, with Jim Baker it was financial issues. These reverends were saying they were the voice of God, the voice of Christ to be more precise and yet they were committing real vices that are immoral at least under the law that would've sent average Americans to jail for a long time.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

The Woody Allen Show: William F. Buckley & Woody Allen Exchange Humor (1967)



Source:The New Democrat

As conservative, snobby and Anglo-Saxon waspy as Bill Buckley came off at least came off as, he had a damn quick and good sense of humor. He wasn't so preppy and full of himself and thought he knew it all about everything that he couldn't take a joke and fire one back right on target and get a reaction and even laugh out of the people he was talking to. And I think that comes off in this quick little interview between two of the best wisecrack artists who ever lived in Woody Allen and Bill Buckley.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Saul Alinsky: Mobilizing The Poor (1967)


Source:Tapa Talk- Saul Alinsky talking about community organizing.

Source:The New Democrat 

"When William F. Buckley met Saul Alinsky, one of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s biggest influences.

The common aim of all Mr. Alinsky's organizations is to mobilize the poor-- mobilize them by whatever mean comes to hand (marches, sit-ins)--to demand decent housing conditions or whatever the local need may be. This one is a knock-down, drag- out from start to finish.
SA: I refuse to debate with him [David Riesman], which only came up recently ... I made the remark that any time I see any of his stuff, it sort of makes me feel like a grizzled, battle-scarred dog going down the street while way back, say, six blocks back or so, this little whining Pekingese comes out sniffing, yipping, and licking and growling at my leavings. And I'm not going to waste my time turning around." 

From Tapa Talk 

"William F Buckley engages community organizer Sal Alinsky regarding his actions and guiding philosophy. Liberty Pen
Source:Liberty Pen- community organizer Saul Alinsky on Firing Line With William F. Buckley in 1967. They talked about Mr. Alinsky's philosophy on community organizing.


What I got in from this discussion from the few moments that Saul Alinsky got to talk about his own personal philosophy (even though this is about a fifteen-minute video) is that Mr. Alinsky was saying that: 

"Democracy that of course it is not perfect, is the best political system on the planet. But that democracy needs to work for everyone and not just be there for people who have money, or a lot of money. That everyone should have power and the ability to live in freedom. And that freedom shouldn't just be for people born to wealth and even just for people who create their own wealth."

Mr. Alinsky I believe sounds very mainstream to me and values that I believe Liberals, Progressives, Socialists and perhaps even Conservatives can all agree on. But the only question being what is the best way to make that happen so we don't have a country with very few wealthy people and a lot of poor people. But where where a lot of people are at least successful with money in the bank and not living paycheck to paycheck and struggling just to pay their bills. Whether they are rich or not.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Watch Mojo: Top 10 Walter Cronkite Moments: JFK, Vietnam, Watergate

Walter Cronkite was and still is the standard for broadcast news because of his knowledge of the news and what it meant, but also how he carried himself. He was always the man in charge at his CBS News desk, the man you turn to when there is some type of crisis. The man you know won't fold under pressure and always know what to do whatever the situation is. Sort of like a great general in battle or a great head coach in sports who is not replaceable and still missed today.

Bedford TV: CBS News Evening News: Iranian Hostage Crisis - December 26, 1980


Source:The New Democrat

Looks like at least from this short film that the American hostages in Iran were taken care of. That they weren't being starved, or forced to wear awful looking prison uniforms and held under brutal conditions. That they were being held like white-collar inmates would be held in America in a minimum security prison. Just based on this little film the hostages looked like they were in good shape and given the opportunity to tell their families that.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

TruthOut: Gar Alperovitz: Is Worker Ownerships a Way Forward For Market Basket?

Source: TruthOut-
Source:The New Democrat

Employee cooperatives which is really what this article is about is a good socialist alternative to private corporations that are run by a CEO and have a Board of Directors that represents the stockholders. But where the employees below management and even lower management like people who run factories and offices do not have much of a say in how the company is run. And do not in a lot of cases collect the benefits of the company's success other than pay, benefits and promotions. Because they don't own any part of the company themselves. Unlike management and the Board.

What employee cooperatives are, are business's where the employees have a financial stake in a private company other than their pay and benefits. Because they own stock in the company and as stockholders they have representation in management and on the Board and have a say in who runs the company including the CEO, Chairman and the management heads behind them. And allows for workers to move up financially and do well not only in the company, but make real good money for them self as well. And gives them a lot of incentive to do as well as possible for the company.
Source:Evergreen Cooperatives

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Moyers & Company: Bill Moyers Interviewing Ta-Nehisi Coates - Facing the Truth

Source:The New Democrat

One of the problems and not the only problem, but one of the main problems with reparations for African-Americans, or any other group of Americans is that we would be requiring not asking, but requiring Americans of all races to pay for the evils and horrors that English-Americans for the most part did to African-Americans. Requiring Americans of all races including African-Americans and even successful middle-class and wealthy African-Americans to pay for the evils of English-Americans and what they did to African-Americans for what three-hundred years now.

Friday, August 8, 2014

The New York Times: Paul Krugman: Inequality is a Drag

Source:The New Democrat

If you are familiar with my blogging you know that I'm not a redistributionist in the sense that I believe the way to close the wealth and income gaps in America is to take from the rich to give to government to take care of the poor. What I want to is to expand economic opportunity to the poor and low-end middle class so they can be successful as well. And not need public assistance at all and not become dependent on public assistance as part of their income.

So that is just one issue where I disagree with Paul Krugman on. I believe in economic growth that everyone feels and benefits from with a middle-out approach. Not trickle down which obviously doesn't work, or wealth redistribution. But empowering people in need to get the tools that they need to live in freedom and not have to be government dependent. And you accomplish those things by empowering at the bottom and near bottom through education and job training so they can get themselves the skills that they need to get a good job.

We saw the benefits of the middle-out approach during the Clinton Administration where we had low unemployment during most of the 1990s. High economic growth from 1994 for the rest of the decade. And with Welfare to Work educating and training low-skilled adults on Welfare so they could get the skills that they need to get themselves a good job and get off of public assistance all together. You expand the pot so more people can take out of it and you'll encourage more people to be successful. You redistribute from the current pot and you encourage fewer people to be successful on their own.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

The Nation: Mike Konczal & Bryce Covert: 'The Real Solution to Wealth Inequality'

Source:The Nation- if you are a Socialist, you probably hate George Washington for multiple reasons.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Both Republicans and Democrats want to solve economic insecurity by giving people more purchasing power. There’s a better solution. 

With this issue, we’re inaugurating “The Score,” a monthly feature about the economy by Bryce Covert and Mike Konczal.

The wealth controlled by the top tenth of the top 1 percent has more than doubled over the past thirty years in the United States, approaching levels not seen since the 1920s. The left’s two recent intellectual blockbusters—Thomas Piketty’s bestselling Capital in the Twenty-First Century and Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “The Case for Reparations”—published by The Atlantic—indicate the profound uneasiness with this trend.

Wealth is the ownership of the productive economic elements in society, such as land and corporations. The wealthy control the direction of the economy, and they claim an increasing share of what it produces. But as their influence increases, they avoid being held to the same standard of accountability under a system of democratic politics, while those of us without wealth find ourselves vulnerable." 

From The Nation 

"Chris Matthews on Redistribution of Wealth" 

Source:Jan Helfeld- interviewing political columnist Chris Matthews.

From Jan Helfeld

Before I explain why I disagree with the wealth redistribution argument when it comes to the income and wealth gaps in America. I'm first going to be (excuse my American English) an asshole about socialism and the authors of this piece from The Nation. Granted The Nation is nothing if not provocative and for that is always worth reading. And thank God (well actually our Founding Fathers) for our First Amendment Freedom of Speech and that the state doesn't control our media. Even though some on the far-left have advocated for nationalizing the media this country.

But about this latest piece from The Nation from Mike Konczal and Bruce Covert. For you Seinfeld fans and people familiar with this show I'm going to take you back to season four of that series. The Gay Episode (for lack of a better term) when a college reporter overhears Jerry and George pretending to be gay (no offense) and pretending to be boyfriends. And Jerry and George finding out about this and confronting the reporter and strongly telling her " we are not gay! Not that there's anything wrong with that if that's who you are". Well that is how I feel about Socialists in this country and I'm going to explain that.

Even as late as 1993 when that Seinfeld episode went on the air there were plenty of Gay-Americans who were still in the closet for obvious reasons. Most of them having to do with bigotry and ignorance about homosexuality. Well then and now we probably have millions of Americans who are stuck in the Socialist closet because they are afraid to let Americans know they are Socialists. Because of all the negative stereotypes that still remain in this country about socialism. With it constantly being linked to communism and other authoritarian philosophies.

What too many Americans still do not understand even with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union is that Socialists tend to be democratic. And if you look at Europe as well as America Socialists tend to believe in a certain level of capitalism and private enterprise to go along with a robust welfare state that they believe should provide the basic human necessities. The reason why Socialists get called Liberals or use the liberal label for themselves (which is an insult to me as a Liberal) or Progressives is because of how unpopular the word Socialist is still in America. So they constantly advocate for socialist policies and programs, but go with the liberal or progressive label instead.

Now as far as the piece on The Nation. Mike Konczal and Bryce Covert are essentially arguing for a social democratic or socialist economic system. Not state controls the means of production, which is different. Just most of the money that is produced by the private sector to finance their robust welfare state. That would be in charge of the pensions, health care, college financing and perhaps education in general. And taking those services out of the private sector completely to be controlled by the U.S. Government.

As I've argued many times before the problem with the American economy is not that we have too many rich people. But that we have too many poor people and lower middle class people that if they were out of work would qualify for public assistance because of their lack of savings. Where government can make a real contribution here is to empower the people at the bottom and near bottom to get themselves the skills that they need to get a better job and make more money and obtain economic security. You empower people to be able to take care of themselves and live in freedom, they generally will if they have strong character and strong core of values. Government doesn't need to do that for them.

Michelle Goldberg: 'Should Buying Sex Be Illegal?'

Source:The Nation- with an article about prostitution in Sweden.

Source:The New Democrat 

"The so-called “Swedish model” banning the purchase but not the sale of sex is catching on in Europe. But does it work? And for whom? 

Editor’s Note: Reporting for this article was funded by a grant from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. 

“Felicia Anna” is the nom de Internet of a 27-year-old Romanian prostitute who has worked in one of Amsterdam’s famed window brothels for the last four years. This spring, she launched a blog, Behind the Red Light District, and when I was in Amsterdam reporting on prostitution laws, a Dutch advocate for sex workers’ rights suggested I read it. Anna’s writing, the advocate said, would help me better understand the reality of legalized prostitution—a reality far removed from the lurid tales told by European anti-prostitution campaigners who seek to criminalize the purchase of sex. 

Written in English, Behind the Red Light District takes on what Anna sees as the myths propagated by the “rescue industry,” the confluence of radical feminists, conservative Christians and members of law enforcement who seek to save girls from sex trafficking. Legally, Anna would probably be considered a victim of trafficking herself. She had few prospects in Romania, she said, where she could expect to earn 200 euros a month at most. Some friends had promised to help her find a bar or restaurant job in Italy, but it never came through. Finally, at loose ends, she spoke to a couple—an Amsterdam-based sex worker and her boyfriend—who promised that she could make a lot of money as a prostitute in the Netherlands, which legalized pimping and brothel-keeping in 2000. They got Anna started, buying her plane ticket, putting her up in their apartment and helping to arrange the necessary paperwork. In exchange, Anna had to pay them back all the money they spent, “plus a little extra for all the effort they put into it,” she says. 

But this was not, Anna insists, an exploitative situation. The couple was kind to her, functioning more as a helpful employment agency than as underworld thugs. The work turned out to be remunerative, and the independence it provided was empowering. “I have a good live [sic], have enough money to do whatever I want to do, and have all the freedom in the world to do what I want, whenever I want to,” she wrote on her blog. 

Anna is scathing about the so-called “Swedish model” (also referred to as the “Nordic model”), an approach pioneered in Sweden that bans the buying but not the selling of sex. For the last few years, the Swedish model has been ascendant in Europe. Norway and Iceland adopted it in 2009, and Ireland and France are both considering it, though its future in the latter country is increasingly uncertain after a defeat in a French Senate committee in July. Earlier this year, the European Parliament voted in favor of a resolution calling for Swedish-style laws throughout the continent. Dutch advocates for sex workers’ rights fear that such laws could eventually come to their famously liberal country. The variant of feminism that backs the Swedish model, says Anna, is a “growing cancer for prostitutes.” 

I e-mailed Anna, and she agreed to meet early on a recent Friday evening at a cafe in central Amsterdam, where she arrived with her Dutch boyfriend in tow. Anna is slight and pretty, with dark hair pulled into a tight ponytail. Her eyes, slanting up above high cheekbones, are ringed with thick black liner, and her eyebrows are painted in a dramatic arch. Given the voice of her blog, I expect her to be tough and sarcastic, but she’s nothing of the sort. She smiles a lot when she speaks, in English that is more broken than on her blog. 

How, I ask her, did she become so interested in the politics of prostitution? “Because of my boyfriend,” Anna replies. “I think if I don’t have him, I would still be one of the girls who really doesn’t know what is happening.” 

Her boyfriend, who speaks excellent English, has longish brown hair and a hint of a mustache and goatee; he’s wearing a gold-colored chain around his neck and another around his wrist. He works in IT, he says, but never seems to make much money. He met Anna two years ago as a client; before they got together, he lived outside the city because he couldn’t afford an apartment in Amsterdam. Her earnings—about 300 to 400 euros per shift, which can run anywhere from four to ten hours—are more than five times as much as his. 

As we talk, it becomes clear that the voice of the blog is at least as much his as hers. In conversation, he compares the Swedish model to Prohibition in the United States, a point also made on Behind the Red Light District. And while the online Felicia Anna says she’s been endangered by a client only once, the Felicia Anna sitting across from me says she’s had to call the police two or three times. Nor does she feel that she can call for help every time a client gets aggressive and starts demanding his money back: “You can’t call always the police, because sometimes then you have to call almost the whole night.” Her boyfriend chimes in to compare it to working late at night at a bar. “You can also get drunk guys late at night,” he says. “You can also have problems with them.” 

When I mention that Behind the Red Light District sounds like him, Anna tells me: “He help me a lot with it, because I work in the nighttime and I have to sleep, too. And I have my own stuff that I have to do—cleaning the house, shopping, sometimes cooking. I can’t do everything by myself.”

Basically, her boyfriend adds, “she dictates what I have to write, and I kind of fill in, smooth out the story line... 

From The Nation 

"In this video, I talk about traveling to The Netherlands and Sweden to investigate the growing push for bans on the buying but not the selling of sex – sometimes called the Swedish model -- and describe my ambiguous conclusions.  Ultimately, I found that the Swedish model of prostitution law, currently ascendant in Europe and likely to be enacted in Canada, works, but at some cost to some of the women in sex work that it purports to help." 

Source:Pulitzer Center- left-wing columnist Michelle Goldberg.

From the Pulitzer Center 

Just one quick point on the Swedish prostitution law: if women were being arrested for selling their sex, but men weren’t for buying the the women’s sex, radical feminists and the Far-Left would be freaking out over that and saying how sexist it was. And they would be right. (For a change)

What Sweden has done is to say it’s legal for women to sell their sex. But it’s illegal for men to buy their sex. Which is also sexist. If you want to have credibility, at least with people who aren’t already on your side, when it comes to sexism and bigotry in general, you have to play it straight. (No pun intended)

Here’s an example where radical-feminists (to use Michelle Goldberg’s label) as well as Christian Conservatives as well as nanny statists on the Left and Right disagree with me as a Liberal. I’m in favor of legalizing prostitution and let me make that clear. I’m not in favor of prostitution, but I’m in favor of allowing for people to make these decisions for themselves. I have decided that prostitution is not for me as a job or as a customer. Millions of other Americans in and outside of Nevada have decided that prostitution is for them as a worker or customer and have never spent a day in jail for it. And that is really my point. Who should decide, the individual or government?

There are plenty of things that I would never do because of potential dangerous risks that come from them. And most of them are legal:

like owning and using firearms

smoking tobacco

drinking alcohol

bungee jumping

gambling

homosexual sex

hardcore porn. And hardcore porn not so much because of any danger factor, but I don’t have much of a taste for it. Perhaps you need to be more lonely or lonely period to appreciate solid hardcore porn. But being that as it may there are plenty of dangerous activities that are actually legal in this country.

These vices (if you want to call them that) are legal because we’ve decided that there there’s a limit to what government can do to protect a country of three-hundred fifteen-million people. And that we need to limit those resources except for a few exceptions to doing the things that we need government to do. Like protecting us from predators foreign and domestic. (To use as an example)

I’m not saying prostitution is a good thing, but like a lot of these other activities it would be safer if it is legal than illegal. Because government can regulate it to protect people from predators and the workers, employers and customers can pay taxes on it.

What happens when you legalize prostitution? Now government can step in to regulate it to make it as safe as possible. Because legal or illegal prostitution is not the oldest profession in  the world for nothing. And it is only going to get older  so you might as well legalize it. So only adults are involved and customers and workers are tested on a regular basis to prevent the spread of disease. And so taxes are paid on it which and people don’t have to pay other people’s taxes that they are not paying because they are involved in a illegal profession.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

The American Prospect: Paul Waldman: 'Can Liberalism Survive the Obama Presidency?'

Source:The New Democrat

First of all Barack Obama when he ran for President in 2008 didn't run as a McGovernite Social Democrat which is what the Occupy Wall Street and the broader New Left in America are. He ran as a mainstream moderate Liberal or Progressive. Who combined both New Democrat liberal policies with FDR New Deal progressive polices as it related to both economic and foreign policy. He didn't run to end the War on Terror or War on Drugs. At best he ran to fight those wars better. He didn't even officially come out for same-sex-marriage until he ran for reelection in 2012. And expanded the War on Drugs and War on Terror in his first-term.

I knew all of these things before I voted for him in 2008 and 2012. The New Left in America saw him as Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, but someone who could actually get elected President. They obviously didn't do their homework and have nothing to be disappointed with other than themselves. As far as liberalism itself and how President Obama relates to it. The economic agenda is there as far as expanding economic opportunity for people in poverty through education, job training, infrastructure and trade. But the social issues including civil liberties other than civil rights is where he comes up short as a Liberal.

All you need to know about how Millennial's feel about liberalism is where they are on the issues. They believe in a lot of personal freedom, believe in civil liberties. Do not want government managing their own personal or economic affairs. This is the most tolerant and color-blind as well as race-blind generation this country has ever seen. Which is why affirmative action has lost so much support in this country. So liberalism is in good shape, but what it needs are real Liberals to step up, run for office, get elected and show them why personal and economic freedom are good things as well as tolerance. And we'll see more liberal policies get passed in this country.

Saturday, August 2, 2014

CBS News: Face The Nation: 2014 Midterms: Where Does the Battle For the Senate Stand?

 


Look I'm a loyal Democrat at least when it comes to my voting and anyone familiar with my blogging knows that. But what the Face The Nation panel didn't really cover at all was the fact that the Democratic incumbents in a lot of cases are strong as far as being able to raise money. Not being very unpopular and are mainstream Democrats representing red states. Who could very well be facing far-right candidates running in center-right red states that are blue collar where mainstream Democrats still do very well. Like Arkansas, North Carolina, Michigan, and Virginia.


The other thing the panel didn't mention was that Democrats have solid pickup opportunities now in Georgia, Kentucky and even Mississippi. Is there a more unpopular member of Congress than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who is up for reelection in Kentucky? Who is up against a young popular very well funded Democrat Kentucky Secretary of State Allison Lundgran Grimes. They are dead even right now. Go to Georgia with Democrat Michelle Nunn another popular Democrat and young who is a complete outsider when it comes to Washington up against David Perdue. Who has had Mitt Romney style campaign mistakes and has a similar record in business. They are even as well.

What the panel did was go based on the facts that Senate Democrats have more incumbents and past history when the party in power that is the party that holds the executive loses a lot of seats in Congress and generally in both chambers. Instead of focusing on the facts on the ground in all of these campaigns today. Which is typical from mainstream news shows and organizations. I'm not saying that Democrats are definitely going to hold the Senate. But just looking at the evidence today I could definitely see them limiting their losses in the Senate to 2-3 because of potential pickups in three states and the strong incumbents that they have running.

Friday, August 1, 2014

Ed Sullivan Show: Jim Morrison & The Doors Light My Fire (1967)

Before I make Jim Morrison look real bad here I’ll say that this was one of The Doors best performances ever even as short as it was. The Lizard King (and I say that for a reason) was at the top of his game with the vocals and everyone played very well. But if you watch the video (and you are not blind) you see something real obvious and may get to thinking “what the hell”. (or something stronger than that) Because you see Morrison in his classic black leather suit. Nothing strange there from him, but with a big fact erection sticking out of his leather jeans.

I don’t know how you go out on stage with that sticking out and that is assuming you are sober. And perhaps The Lizard King wasn’t and this was one of the reasons why he was The Lizard King. Because he was so out there and not just wore the black leather jeans at most of his performances. But his leathers were so skin-tight and revealing that anything that got him excited sexually was going to be seen by a lot of people and this case being on Sullivan by millions of people. And it happened to him in one of the most public places possible on Ed Sullivan on national TV on Sunday night in 1967.