Larry Bird would never go down without a fight
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Turner Sports: NBA 1992: EC Semifinals: Cavs @ Celtics: Game 6 Larry Bird's Last Game @ The Boston Garden
Larry Bird would never go down without a fight
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
The Red Sox had a great team in 1967 but so did the Cardinals, which is what made this World Series great. Carl Yastrzemski had two great opportunities to win World Series with the Red Sox in 1967 and 1975 but they played two great teams, Cardinals with Bob Gibson, Orlando Cepeda, Lou Brock and others. In 1967 and the Big Red Machine Reds in 1975 led by Sparky Anderson, with Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, Tony Perez and others. And lost both times in very close seven game series that were decided by a matter of plays rather then games.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Sunday, August 26, 2012
|Source: Arizona Public Media-|
Had it not have been for 1974 and the Watergate scandal, Jimmy Carter doesn’t get elected President of the United States, at least in 1976. He probably runs for reelection for Governor of Georgia in 1974 and probably gets reelected and waits for 1980. And looks at his options then. Jimmy Carter, basically was in a time that was perfect for someone like him, after Watergate and President Nixon resigning in 1974. Americans were looking for decent honest person to lead the country.
Which is what President Gerry Ford was, but they were also looking for an outsider and a new voice that was not from Washington. Not a cabinet official, or someone in Congress, but a breath of fresh air, someone who wasn’t an elitist and someone who spoke their mind and could take the country on a different course. And perhaps end the gridlock in Washington and to a certain extent that’s what President Carter brought to Washington. He was able to pass a lot of legislation out of Congress.
Yes President Carter, had a Democratic Congress with large majorities, including a 3-5 majority in the Senate his first two years. But he was also able to get a lot of Congressional Republicans to vote for his legislation, because he worked with the Republican Leadership in the House and Senate. He probably actually had more Republican allies in Congress, than Democratic allies. He had problems with Congressional Democrats.
Former Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole who was in Congress during the Carter Administration, once said that Jimmy Carter was the smartest President he had ever served with, which might be true. But great intelligence and knowledge is a great thing to have as President, but you also have to have a political feel as a politician. You have to know what you want to do, where you want to take the country and how far you can take it, based on the political situation and what’s possible.
Which is something that President Carter didn’t have unlike President’s Reagan and Clinton and wasn’t sure how to communicate a message that he could get Americans to rally behind. And move Americans to get their Senators and Representatives behind him. He also had a Democratic Congress to deal with that was run by New Deal/Great Society Progressive/New Left Democrats, that since there was a Democratic President, automatically felt that it was time to move back to days of the Great Society and big government progressivism. And that wasn’t the type of Democrat that Jimmy Carter was.
President Carter, was ahead of his time in the Democratic Party in this sense. That he understood the limits of the Federal Government. And that there was only so much that it could do on its own to solve the nation’s problems and that it was time for a different approach. And even though his political feel wasn’t that good, he understood that by the late 1970s, that America had moved past the Progressive Era. And that Americans were ready for a different approach. Which also caused him problems with Congressional Democrats. So Jimmy Carter, ended up being a President with few allies in Washington, which made his job even more difficult.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Wendell Willkie a Classical Liberal speaking out against big government socialism. Imagine that, a Liberal winning the Republican Party nomination for President, which might sound like the Cleveland Browns winning the Super Bowl and Ku Klux Klan coming out in favor of more immigration from both Africa and Asia today, but back in the 1940s when the Dixiecrats were still in the Democratic Party and before the Christian-Right had any real power in or outside of the Republican Party, a Classical Liberal ( Liberal in the real and classic sense ) could do well in the Republican Party.
Liberals who were against all forms of discrimination especially ethnic and racial discrimination. Someone who believed in the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights. Like free speech, right to privacy, self-defense, property rights., federalism. Personal as well as economic freedom. That was the Democratic Party pre-late 1960s when the right-wing Dixiecrats in the Democratic Party, moved over to the Republican Party.
Back in 1940, the Democratic Party had Progressive President Franklin Roosevelt as their presidential nominee. The man and administration who gave us the progressive New Deal safety net in America. The Republican Party had a Liberal who wasn't opposed to a safety net and believed in civil rights laws and was even to the Left of President Roosevelt on no civil and equal rights, civil liberties in general, in private businessman and lawyer Wendell Willkie.
Wendell Willkie even viewed his own politics as liberal, but said he was opposed to socialism. Which Liberals are at least as far as a governing political philosophy. The 1940s presidential election basically gave America a choice between two center-left presidential candidates. President Franklin Roosevelt for the Democrats and Wendell Willkie for the Republicans.
Friday, August 24, 2012
You can make a pretty good case that this is the game that started the Notre Dame/Miami Florida Rivalry
Thursday, August 23, 2012
|Source: Malanda TV-|
1964 was one of the clearest choices for President that Americans have ever had.
The challenger was Senator Barry Goldwater for the Republican Party who was what we would call today a Conservative-Libertarian. ( A real Conservative ) But who back in the 1960s that term hadn't been invited yet, or certainly wasn't well-known. In the 1960s Barry Goldwater was a get big government out of of our wallets, bedrooms, boardrooms, and classrooms, as well as a 10th Amendment Conservative Republican. Which was how Conservatives were defined back then and even by the mainstream media back then. Before the Christian-Right took over the Republican Party, as well as the Dixiecrats moving over to the Democratic Party.
On the other side you had the Democrat Progressive President Lyndon Johnson, who was a real Progressive. Who gave us our civil rights laws, who expanded the safety net for deal with poverty in America which is known as the Great Society programs. Who was anti-Communist cold warrior Progressive Democrat. Not a Socialist who didn't see communism as a threat or who didn't even have a problem with communism. Which is how a lot of so-called Progressives get defined today, since the Democratic Party now has a large socialist faction in it. In many cases social democratic, but in some cases just pure socialist. Who mix in social democracy with communism as far as their own politics.
1964 is what American politics should be about as far as political choice and allowing for Americans to have real choices and clear differences between their political candidates, but people who don't look at politics and democracy as war. But as a competition where you're not trying to destroy your opponent even by making up negative information about your opponent. But by running your own campaign and explaining why you're the best choice for the office that you're running for based on your political philosophy, accomplishments, and qualifications. Not because your'e trying to convince American voters that they should hate your opponent more than yourself. Which is what the Goldwater-Johnson election gave us in 1964.
Monday, August 20, 2012
|Source: Bob Parker-|
I think one thing that separates America and makes us stronger than anyone else is that we can go through a year like 1968 and get through it and survive it. And still remain one country, unlike other countries that tend to go through such division between the people and their government and overall establishment of the country in one year and you see them come apart. With the government falling and perhaps even leading to some type of civil war. Egypt comes to mind pretty fast and what is going on in Syria and Venezuela right now are other good examples.
Having said all of that, its hard to find anything good about 1968 other than maybe the music and the fact that we started to get along better as far as race relations. Where racism and other types of bigotry started to really go out of style. And bigots were left to hide their bigotry or pay serious prices for it. But other than that 1968 was one big disaster after another. A year full of violence with murders and assassinations, the President of the United States deciding not to even bother running for reelection because there were so many people who literally hated him in both parties.
And that is just about the domestic scene in America, but then you go to the Vietnam War itself with Americans finally figuring out that we are not just losing the war, but it is probably lost. And we started seeing all of those dead American soldiers coming home from it. I guess one good thing about 1968 is that Americans finally woke up. And figured out that their government not only doesn’t always tell the truth, but they even lie to their people. The Johnson Administration saying that they were making progress in Vietnam when they knew the opposite was true and that Communist Vietnam was getting stronger.
1968 represents the 1960s as well as it could possibly be. A year of revolution, protest, violence, people coming together from multiple races to be part of the same movement. Where millions of Americans became free to be themselves and no long feel like they had to live a certain way of life in order to fit in or even be good people. 1968 was a shakeup of the entire United States and perhaps was something that the country needed. Even with all the violence and the lost of lives in that decade so Americans would know about the problems in the country, but also what could be done about them. And what also makes us great as a country which is our freedom and diversity.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
|Source: The Onion- Flip Flopper, also known as Mitt Romney-|
Within the next ten years or so America will be a much younger, more diverse, ethnically and racially country that will be more liberal-libertarian, more tolerant. As well with Generations X and Y and will be a country that will want less government in our lives, we are moving to becoming that country that Barry Goldwater wanted which is a big government out of our wallets and bedrooms country. Which plays very well for Democrats, assuming so-called Progressives ( radical hippie Socialists in their Halloween costumes disguises ) don't take over the party.
Because Democrats play very well with ethnic and racial minorities and have welcomed them into the party and support things like comprehensive immigration reform. They have become the civil rights party, which is what the Republican Party use to be and Republicans know this. And as the country is moving left, the GOP is moving right and becoming a more authoritarian and a fascist party. The Democratic Party and Republican Party, did a massive NBA like trade in the late 1960s and 1970s. Northeastern educated well to do Progressive Republicans, moved to the Democratic Party. While the Archie Bunker I forgot to the finish high school blue-collar Dixiecrats, left the Democratic Party, for the Republican Party.
The Far-Right has their own idea of what it means to be an American and what America is and if you don't fit into this box exactly, you don't speak the language a certain way or practice religion a certain way, don't like their forms of entertainment or like other forms of entertainment instead, don't have the traditional 1950s Father Knows Best Bea Cleaver ( from Leave it to Beaver ) family and so-forth, you are somehow Un-American. And the GOP is not ready to move politically to accommodate new voters, they want to stick with their traditional 1950s got caught into a time machine now living in Modern America base.
Instead of realizing this new reality and trying to adjust to it and use it as an opportunity, of how can we become a bigger party and bring in new voters, Christian-Nationalist Republicans, who now run the GOP, have gone in the opposite direction and looked for ways to make themselves smaller. They've somehow calculated that you become a bigger party by becoming smaller and preventing Democrats from voting. But use that to not only remain competitive but to continue to win elections and have already written off these new voters as people who aren't going to vote Republican.
And the GOP has decided, that if they aren't going to vote Republican, they aren't going to vote at all. That's exactly what Voter ID is all about. The more accurate way to describe Voter ID, is to call it the Democratic Voter Prevention Act. How to prevent African and Latin American voters, a well as young people from voting at all, because if these voters turnout and vote, they will almost certainly vote Democratic and costs the Far-Right seats in Congress and other elections.
So sure, if you can prevent seniors in places like Florida as well as minorities who tend to be Democratic from voting, what's the next logical step? I know, keep seniors who tend to be Republican from dying, so we can keep these votes alive so to speak, while we are preventing others from voting at all. I guess you can bring out Mitt Romney's clone machine and clone old people who are about to die and are loyal GOP voters. I guess if you are desperate enough, you'll do anything to win, even save lives to save votes and prevent others from voting to save votes against.
|Source: David Von Pein- Geraldo Rivera-|
I don't believe there is any question who assassinated President John F. Kennedy. That man is obviously Lee Harvey Oswald. He had the access, the motive, the ability, his gun was the gun that killed President Kennedy, his fingerprints were on the gun. If he ever made it to trial he would have had to pleaded guilty to have any shot in hell (where he's currently residing) to have any shot in hell of avoiding the death penalty. That is not the question as far as who actually killed President Kennedy. And for anyone who disagrees with that, you really should treat them as if they're mental patients, or liars like Roger Stone to use as an example. Whose probably made millions from his books with his own JFK assassination conspiracy theories.
The only question for me is did anyone else put Lee Oswald up to the assassination and then used him as their patsy. Knowing he was going to get caught and probably given the death penalty as a result, but Oswald agreed to do it anyway. Jack Kennedy, had a lot of enemies in Texas and Dallas perhaps especially both on the Far-Left where Oswald represented as a Marxist. But on the Far-Right for his support for civil and equal rights for African-Americans. And for his economic liberalism and wanting to use government to create new economic opportunity for people who needed it. But from organized crime especially the Italian Mafia, because of his administration's crackdown on organized crime. Jack Ruby, who killed Oswald had organize crime connections as well. Which just ignites the organize crime theory behind the JFK assassination.
We know, at least anyone who both has a brain and is sane at the same time, which is an accomplishment unfortunately for too many Americans, who assassinated President John Kennedy. The question was there anyone else involved or not. Was this something that was just put together by a highly intelligent and sharp man who was also deranged and a loser all in the same person. Or did he not only have help as far as actually pulling off the assassination with a second shooter and have people behind them that put the hit out and hired them to do it. Was Oswald the lone shooter, but was hired by others to assassinate the President. These are the questions that I at least and a lot of other intelligent sane Americans don't have the answers to yet. Which is why speculation in this case still goes on. And how the Roger Stone's of the world make their money.
Friday, August 17, 2012
|President Jimmy Carter-|
And because America had backed the Shah for so long and President Jimmy Carter saying that the Shah was such a fine leader and good man for Iran, these Iranian revolutionaries decided to take out their frustration and anger on what was left of American involvement in Iran which was our embassy there. And took about hundred American U.S. embassy employees hostage. Which is how the Iranian hostage crisis started. Which was essentially the end of Jimmy Carter as a strong leader in America, or even having the potential of being a strong leader of the United States. Because now America looked weak compared to a third-world country and was held hostage.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
|Source: David Von Pein-|
It gave people another choice as well. Do we want to continue to do what we were doing as a country. Have the Federal Government stay the course and not make any big changes, or do we want to try a different path. Senator Kennedy tried and I believe was successful in making the argument that America was stagnating not moving and advancing as fast as it could. And that Vice President Nixon represented this conservative approach of not moving real fast, staying back and seeing how things develop. Where Vice President Nixon tried to make the argument that America wasn’t ready to chart a different course.
Dick Nixon didn’t want to chart a course with a somewhat young and inexperienced Senator that had never been an executive before. Thats the choice that America had for President in 1960. What Jack Kennedy represented for the country was a true vision of where he wanted to take the country and how we would get there. Making the argument that America was sitting still in the 1950s under President Eisenhower who was somewhat conservative. And that the country wasn’t advancing fast enough. And sitting still and even falling behind.
The recession of the late 1950s helped Senator Kennedy make the case that its time to move again. And Dick Nixon President Eisenhower’s loyal and influential Vice President represented the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Vice President Nixon I believe didn’t do much to counter this argument or defend himself. But what he did instead was try to make this campaign about Jack Kennedy’s youth and inexperience. Even though they both came to Congress the same time in 1947 to the House and were friends there. And remained friends when Nixon became Vice President in 1953 and Kennedy was elected to the Senate the same year. And Nixon was only four years older and were in the same generation.
One difference between Jack Kennedy and Dick Nixon, was that Kennedy did offer the country a change of course. That would finish off what was created in the 1930s with the New Deal. But in a different way, focusing on health care, civil rights and tax cuts. Making the case the country was overtaxed. Where I believe Nixon didn’t have what’s called the vision thing, at least in 1960. He developed that by 1968 when he was elected President. But 1960 for him was, “this is what’s been working, so lets continue what we’ve done.”
Friday, August 10, 2012
Malcolm X, represents to me many ways what the American Dream and what that is and should be. Someone who started from very rough beginnings, essentially came from nothing and worked his way up in life. And got so far, that people actually saw him as a threat, or his message of freedom and responsibility, not just for African-Americans, but for all Americans, as threats. By the time he died, he believed that people should be judged as people. Who moved towards Dr. Martin King when it came to civil rights. By the time he died, even as a young man he was in prison and at one point was even a racist. He saw all Caucasians as racists or “White Devils”, and not just as people and not just the people. And not just the racists, but all Caucasians.
But once Malcolm left prison and left the Nation of Islam, he got himself educated and started hanging out with Caucasians that weren’t racist and believed in similar things. And learned better and that perhaps he could work with them so they could all accomplish the same things. That all Americans should be treated equally under law and not be held down because of their race. I wrote a blog arguing this a few months ago. But Malcolm X’s message was about freedom and responsibility. That people shouldn’t expect to be given things. That if we wanted to achieve anything in life and be successful, that we had to go out and achieve those things and not settle for failure.
That people, shouldn’t settle for poverty, or anything else. That the way to avoid these things, were to go out and get ourselves educated, work hard and be productive. Rather than expect government, or anyone else to hand us those things. Which is why I believe if Malcolm X were alive today, he would be a classical Liberal Democrat or Conservative, not exactly registered to either party. But he would have that mindset, that people shouldn’t expect government, or other people to take care of themselves. But they needed to be able to do that for themselves, if they expected to be successful in life. Had both Malcolm X and Martin King lived a natural life, meaning they didn’t die at a young age and lived into their senior years and not have been murdered, or killed, but died through natural causes, America would be a much different country and not just for African-Americans. Both of them would’ve helped a lot of people who weren’t free to live their own lives. Be able to achieve those things for themselves by preaching the message of individual freedom and personal responsibility through education.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Saturday, August 4, 2012
|Source: Associated Press-|
If you are going to look at the life of entertainer Marilyn Monroe who died at the very young age of 36, the same age I am today, but back in 1962 And you can get past the goddess parts of Marilyn Monroe, which I admit is very difficult, to me at least she’s the best looking women whose ever lived, whose not related to me, you are talking about the sexy baby of all sexy babies. The sexy baby that all Sexy Babies are measured by. Extremely hot, baby-face adorable, didn’t even look 36, more like 22.
And of course with one of the greatest if not greatest bodies a women has ever had. She looked like an athlete like a tennis player or something, but if you are able to get past all of that, I believe you’ll see a very talented, but somewhat lost women. Who lacked self-confidence and perhaps was never very happy. Which is interesting to me because she married someone who had similar issues in Joe DiMaggio. One of the top 3-5 baseball players of all time, but who perhaps never appreciated that.
Marilyn Monroe wasn’t a bimbo, perhaps not very knowledgeable or very interested in things outside of the entertainment industry. But someone who was very good at her craft who didn’t work very hard at it. She was famous for missing rehearsal’s, not showing up for events. Not being very professional, but she was very good at her craft. She didn’t have to work very hard at it. She was someone who was very funny like in the movie the Seven Year Itch.
And funny in person as well and she could also act. Either be a comedian or a dramatic actress and she could also sing and perform. She wasn’t an actress or a singer, but an entertainer. Perhaps so good at her craft and then you throw in her physical attractiveness, she seemed to have everything going for her. But apparently there was something missing that she wasn’t able to accomplish which is what brought her down.
They say genius’ are somewhat troubled because as brilliant as they are about somethings. They devote so much time those direct areas that they don’t have much else going for them and seem very mediocre in other areas. Like a nerd who knows everything about lets say chemistry but couldn’t tell you their favorite movie or something because they don’t have one or don’t watch any movies or something and seem somewhat unsatisfied. I’m not saying Marilyn was a genius, but she had some of those characteristics.