NFL Films: NFL: 1978- Week 12- Philadelphia Eagles @ New York Giants: Miracle at The Meadowlands

Source:NFL Films- Eagles DB Herm Edwards, with the Christmas gift of 1978, courtesy of Giants QB Joe Pisarcik.

Source:The New Democrat

"Check out where the Miracle at the Meadowlands lands on NFL Top 10 worst plays."

From NFL Films

There are games that can send mediocre teams to the playoffs and end seasons for teams that may think they are good and are in the playoff race. And 1978 Miracle at The Meadowlands is that game, because both teams were still in the NFC Playoff race at this point, but basically had to win this game. 

Especially the Giants at 5-6, or have to win out and probably get help from other teams to get the fifth and last playoff spot in the NFC. The Eagles-Giants rivalry is one of the oldest and best in the NFL, top 3-5 and has had a lot of staple games. But when you lose or win a game where the team that is leading late in the game, only has to run out the clock with victory formation and they blow that and fumble the ball instead, that becomes the staple game of this great rivalry.

The New Republic: Michael Kazin: 'JFK's Assassination Made Governing Harder'

Source:The New Republic- John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) President of the United States (1961-63) 

Source:The New Democrat

"There are many reasons to wish John Kennedy had dodged those rifle shots in Dallas 50 years ago this week. One that’s rarely mentioned is how his martyrdom raised expectations for future presidents that are nearly impossible to meet. Liberals, who put so much faith in federal power, have been particularly reluctant to free themselves of that burden. 

Historians and journalists will probably argue forever about what JFK achieved and what he would have accomplished in the remainder of his first term and a probable second one. But most Americans seem to have no doubts. In a new Gallup poll of presidential approval rates, Kennedy scores higher, by far, than do any of his successors. Three-quarters of the public rank his time in the White House as “outstanding” or “above average.” Reagan places second in this retrospective competition, with a paltry 61 percent. JFK’s enduring appeal just confirms liberals’ admiration for what David Greenberg has called “his commitment to exercising his power to address social needs, his belief that government could harness expert knowledge to solve problems.”

From The New Republic

I guess my main response to Michael Kazin would be: "It depends on what you mean by liberal and liberalism." His idea of what it means to be a Liberal and what liberalism is, is very different from John F. Kennedy's. He talks a lot about the federal state and federal power, as if that's what liberal ism is and what liberalism is based on: "What can the national government do for the people, if we just gave them the power and money .to do those things for us. 

In other publications like Dissent and TruthOut, Mr. Kazin seems to have no issues being associated with terms like leftist or social democrat, democratic socialist, or even socialist. But since he wrote this article for The New Republic, which thanks to Chris Hughes and company, they're now more of a social democratic publication (even if they are closeted Socialists) and they've given up their liberal tradition of arguing in favor of the individual and individual rights, I guess you are not allowed to use words like socialist over there, for fears of seeming like a radical, Even if you share the same values and beliefs of the Socialists. 

As far as John F. Kennedy, he was obviously not a leftist. It's hard to imagine a stronger, more effective, cold warrior and anti-Communist, than John F. Kennedy, especially as President. Perhaps Ronald Reagan, but certainly no one else from the Democratic Party.  

It's true like any true Progressive (not Socialist) that Jack Kennedy believed that government, including the Federal Government, could be a force for good in helping people in need get the tools that they need to live a better life and live in freedom like anyone else. But we're not talking about Eugene Debs, or Henry Wallace, Norman Thomas, David McReynolds, George McGovern, or any of the other great Democratic Socialists from the past, or Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren today. 

President Kennedy puts limits on what he believed government should try to do for people, as well as what he believed Americans would want government to do for them and be willing to pay for. Because as all American taxpayers know, there's nothing free about government. Which is something that every leftist, or center-left politician has to weight when talking about new government reforms and programs. How are these policies going to be paid for and what are taxpayers willing to pay to receive those services. These are things that Jack Kennedy understood very well.  

VOA News: Luiz Ramirez: 'Future Role of US Troops in Afghanistan Debated'

Source:VOA News in Afghanistan.

Source:The New Democrat 

"The number of U.S. troops who remain in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of NATO forces in 2014 depends largely on what the Loya Jirga, or gathering of tribal elders, decides in the coming days when it reviews a draft security agreement between the Afghan and U.S. governments. An Afghan government spokesman said the two sides have agreed to allow home raids by U.S. troops if President Barack Obama acknowledges mistakes by the U.S. military in Afghanistan. The US says it has not agreed to this, and that Washington has its own conditions. VOA Pentagon correspondent Luis Ramirez reports from the Pentagon." 

From VOA News

"Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is the state-owned news network and international radio broadcaster of the United States of America. It is the largest[3] and oldest of the U.S.–funded international broadcasters.[4][5] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 48 languages,[6] which it distributes to affiliate stations around the world. Its targeted and primary audience is non-American... 

From Wikipedia 

The only thing that American troops in conjunction with NATO should be doing right now is helping to train and develop the Afghan military so Afghanistan can defend itself from domestic and foreign invaders including the Taliban and other terrorists groups. We’ve been there twelve years and have our own problems back at home economically and financially. That these wars being put on the national credit card have played a big role in. As well as security interests in other places that we need to address. And we can’t afford to occupy other countries indefinitely. So we should be and are working to develop the Afghan military and central government so they can govern themselves. As far as American troops accused of criminal acts, they should be tried in America, just as long as they are held accountable. And not given the message that they aren’t accountable under law.

Professor Noam Chomsky: 'America Is Not a Democracy'

Source:The Film Archives- MIT Professor Noam Chomsky.

"Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, talked about his book, On Anarchism, in which he examines the political ideology of anarchism, from its history and early proponents to the author’s thoughts on its current usage and practicality. Noam Chomsky spoke at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts." 

From CSPAN

"In practice Chomsky has tended to emphasize the philosophical tendency of anarchism to criticize all forms of illegitimate authority. He has been reticent about theorizing an anarchist society in detail, although he has outlined its likely value systems and institutional framework in broad terms. According to Chomsky, the variety of anarchism which he favors is:

    ... a kind of voluntary socialism, that is, as libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist anarchist, in the tradition of, say, Bakunin and Kropotkin and others. They had in mind a highly organized form of society, but a society that was organized on the basis of organic units, organic communities. And generally, they meant by that the workplace and the neighborhood, and from those two basic units there could derive through federal arrangements a highly integrated kind of social organization which might be national or even international in scope. And these decisions could be made over a substantial range, but by delegates who are always part of the organic community from which they come, to which they return, and in which, in fact, they live.

On the question of the government of political and economic institutions, Chomsky has consistently emphasized the importance of grassroots democratic forms. Accordingly, current Anglo-American institutions of representative democracy "would be criticized by an anarchist of this school on two grounds. First of all because there is a monopoly of power centralized in the state, and secondly – and critically – because the representative democracy is limited to the political sphere and in no serious way encroaches on the economic sphere."

Chomsky believes anarchism is a direct descendant of liberalism, further developing the ideals of personal liberty and minimal government of the Enlightenment.[20] He views libertarian socialism thus as the logical conclusion of liberalism, extending its democratic ideals into the economy, making anarchism an inherently socialist philosophy." 

From The Film Archives

"On Anarchism provides the reasoning behind Noam Chomsky's fearless lifelong questioning of the legitimacy of entrenched power. In these essays, Chomsky redeems one of the most maligned ideologies, anarchism, and places it at the foundation of his political thinking. Chomsky's anarchism is distinctly optimistic and egalitarian. Moreover, it is a living, evolving tradition that is situated in a historical lineage; Chomsky's anarchism emphasizes the power of collective, rather than individualist, action. The collection includes a revealing new introduction by journalist Nathan Schneider, who documented the Occupy movement for Harper's and The Nation, and who places Chomsky's ideas in the contemporary political moment. On Anarchism will be essential listening for a new generation of activists who are at the forefront of a resurgence of interest in anarchism - and for anyone who struggles with what can be done to create a more just world." 

Source:Amazon- Noam Chomsky's book

From Amazon

"Noam Chomsky: America is not a Democracy"

Source:CSPAN- MIT Professor Noam Chomsky.

Source:Moriquenta 

"Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, romanized: dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule'[1]) is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy"). Who is considered part of "the people" and how authority is shared among or delegated by the people has changed over time and at different rates in different countries, but over time more and more of a democratic country's inhabitants have generally been included. Cornerstones of democracy include freedom of assembly, association, property rights, freedom of religion and speech, inclusiveness and equality, citizenship, consent of the governed, voting rights, freedom from unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life and liberty, and minority rights.

The notion of democracy has evolved over time considerably. The original form of democracy was a direct democracy. The most common form of democracy today is a representative democracy, where the people elect government officials to govern on their behalf such as in a parliamentary or presidential democracy" 

From Wikipedia 

"Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is sceptical of authority and rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy.[1] Anarchism calls for the abolition of the state, which it holds to be unnecessary, undesirable, and harmful. As a historically left-wing movement, placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, it is usually described alongside communalism and libertarian Marxism as the libertarian wing (libertarian socialism) of the socialist movement, and has a strong historical association with anti-capitalism and socialism." 

From Wikipedia 

The Right likes to say that America is not a democracy, but a republic. The Far-Left (or left-wing, if you prefer) likes to say that America is not a democracy either, but for different reasons. America isn't their version of democracy, which is a majoritarian, social democracy, with a large, centralized, national state, where the chief executive would be elected by either the Congress, or House of Representatives in Congress, or directly elected by the people without an Electoral College. 

The Right is right (so to speak) that America is not a majoritarian, social democracy. We don't do everything by majority rule or vote. Our constitutional and individual rights can't be thrown out simply because you have one more vote in the House and one more in the Senate and a President that signs the bills that throws at least one of our individual rights out. Everything that Congress and the President does has to be constitutional, whether it's popular or not. 

But if you go by the Wikipedia definition of democracy (check above) America meets most of the components that you see in most democracies. The people elect their legislators and executives. We have a free press and guaranteed right to free speech. We have property rights that can't be taken away by a majority vote in Congress and a presidential signature. Actually, none of our constitutional rights can be taken away by Congress and the President. We have freedom of religion. America is a pluralistic country where everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or gender, has the same constitutional rights as everyone else. 

I think of America is a liberal democratic, constitutional republic, based on the values of liberal democracy and classical liberalism (meaning the real liberalism) but we're not the social democracy that leftists want and perhaps we'll never be. 

The Hamilton Project: Melissa Kearney & Lesley Turner: ‘Press Release: Supporting America’s Struggling Lower-Middle-Class Families’

Source:The Hamilton Project is a Washington based think tank.

Source:The New Democrat

“Washington, DC – On December 4th, The Hamilton Project at Brookings hosted a forum on opportunities to support America’s struggling lower-middle-class. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin kicked off the forum with framing remarks, followed by two panel discussions anchored around new proposals for a secondary earner tax deduction and opportunities to strengthen SNAP. 

Links to the new papers and event materials – including full audio and video – are included below and can be found on the event page here. We’ve also included pull quotes from the three panel discussions for your convenience. The full transcript from the forum will be available tomorrow morning." 

From The Hamilton Project

Fifty to sixty thousand or even forty-thousand dollars a year might sound like a decent income in America. But when you count the fact the average American family brings in around fifty-thousand dollar a year, even with the Great Recession of 2008-09 and the fact that those salaries in large wealthy metropolitan areas like Washington, New York, Boston, San Francisco (to use as examples) where that money is not that much in those areas because the cost of living is so high because with all the benefits of living in a big city or outside of a big city in a big metro area, it really isn’t a lot of money.

Most Americans now live in metropolitan areas and many us live in large metro areas like the ones I mentioned. And then you might have to add education if you have kids and you live in an area without the right public schools for your kids, or you have high health care costs. Fifty-thousand dollars a year give or take which technically puts you in the American middle class might sound like decent money, but not if you have a high cost of living. And not because you are bad with money, but simply you have high costs that you have to meet for your own good and family.  

So those are the problems, a large if not the largest middle class in the world here in America, but a middle class that in a lot of ways is struggling just to make ends meet. And struggling to afford housing, education, health care, putting money away for retirement. Things that they have to do, but since they aren’t technically poor, they aren’t eligible for public assistance. That is what happens when your cost of living increases over lets say a ten-year period, but your wages drop. 

As a country with lack of economic growth, long-term high unemployment, all the jobs that were lost that haven’t been gotten back from the Great Recession and we are left with a percentage of the population the largest in our country our middle class that still have the same bills to meet and same obligations. But has fewer resources and again since they make too much money for public assistance, they have to meet these obligations out of their own pockets with fewer resources to pay those bills. 

In the future I’ll be writing posts about how I believe we can and should address these economic problems through things like a new middle-income tax credit, job training and education for our lower- middle class workers. But with this post I just wanted to first address the problems and then go from there. Like any good doctor would, (not that I’m a doctor) but to fix problems, you first have to know what the problems are.

CBS Sports: NFL 1985-NFC-WC-San Francisco 49ers @ New York Giants: Pat Summerall Intro

Source:CBS Sports- San Francisco 49ers QB Joe Cool Montana, perhaps celebrating another TD against the Dallas Cowboys.

Source:The New Democrat

"NYG 1985 Wild Card Intro Vs 49ers"  

From NY Giants

The NFL on CBS was a great show for many reasons and Pat Summerall might of been the number one reason. But their timing and intros were classic and so well done and knew exactly how to put things and show things to people. 

Pat Summerall: "First New York Giants home playoff game since the 1962 NFL Championship that was at Yankee Stadium",  the day this wildcard game was played. Giants Stadium opened up in East Rutherford, New Jersey in 1976 and this was the first Giants home playoff game there. 

How does CBS Sports introduce this game, with Bruce Spingsteen singing Glory Days. The Glory Days of the New York Giants from the 1950s and early 60s. With Pat Summerall a former New York Giant of course doing the intro. A simple two-minute video or so and this is one of best NFL videos and intros of all-time. Just for those reasons. 

CBS Sports: NBA 1990- Detroit Pistons vs Portland Blazers: 'Game 5 Best Plays'

Source:CBS Sports- the Pistons trying to win their 2nd straight NBA Finals, in game 5 of the 1990 NBA Finals.

Source:The New Democrat 

"1990 NBA Finals - Detroit vs Portland - Game 5 Best Plays. The best highlights from the 1990 NBA Finals Game 5." 

From Gear Master 

The Blazers probably peaked a season too early in 1990 and not prepared to play in the 1990 NBA Finals mentally as far as knowing what it took to win the NBA Finals. And they were playing a very veteran team in the Pistons who had just played in four straight conference finals and playing in their third straight NBA Finals and going for their second straight NBA Finals Championship. 

The Blazers having not even being to the conference finals with this group before reaching the 1990 NBA Finals, against a very experienced, deep and intelligent Pistons team for the NBA Championship in 1990. So this was a matchup of a very good experienced team in the Pistons, with a great player in Isiah Thomas and a great head coach in Chuck Daly. Vs. a young and very talented Blazers teams, without a lot of big game experience. And that showed up a lot in at least four out of the five NBA Finals games.

Merkin Muffly: NBA 1983-ECQF-Game 3- Atlanta Hawks @ Boston Celtics: Highlights

Source:Merkin Muffly- The Hawks vs Celtics, 1983 NBC EC Playoff.

Source: The New Democrat 

“Deciding Game 3 of 1983 Celtic/Hawks, Ainge gets bit by Tree Rollins. Bird holds Dominique to 1 of 6 shooting.”

From Merkin Muffly 

The Hawks and Celtics had a pretty good rivalry with each other in the 1980s, especially in the late 80s where they seemed to meet in the Eastern Conference Playoffs every year. The Celtics won every series including 83, but 85, 86 and 88 as well, but the Hawks played them very well even at the Boston Garden and even won some games there. 

The Hawks probably should’ve won the 88 series and I believe had a better team. They were up 2-1 or 3-2 in that series, if not both leads in the series with the opportunity to close out that series at home. But lost both games.

The Hawks in the late 80s always looked like they were going to make a real run at the NBA Finals in the regular season, but always failed to even get to the Eastern Conference Finals.

A difference between a good team and a very good team: the good team has potential, the very good team consistently moves on in the playoffs. And at least plays for conference championships.

American Experience: JFK, Extended Preview

Source:American Experience with a preview of their JFK documentary.

Source:The New Democrat

"The 2-minute preview for JFK, a new biopic coming to PBS and American Experience on November 11 & 12, 2013."  

From American Experience

The PBS version of John F. Kennedy is the best program at least I've seen of Jack Kennedy this month. Not that there has been a lot of quality programs and films about his so far in November. Because the rest of them have been about the assassination and why he was in Dallas in November, 1963. Or why he so highly regarded in pop culture as a cool president. But the American Experience program is truly about his life and his career. 

Jack Kennedy before Congress, in Congress, the famous 1960 presidential election against Richard Nixon, the Kennedy Administration obviously and all of the key moments that happened in his administration. How he put his administration together, the relationship he had with the Southern Caucus of right-wing Democrats in Congress that had the real power in the House and Senate. Even though he did have large Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate.  

President Kennedy's policies to stimulate economic growth and expand educational and college opportunities. The Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, his hard push for civil rights legislation. All of the things that you tend not to get from the commercial networks or the entertainment cable networks. But that you only get for the most part from PBS and films you see at the theater.

ABC Sports: MLB 1982-NLCS Game 3- St. Louis Cardinals @ Atlanta Braves: Full Game

Source:ABC Sports- Atlanta Braves owner Ted Turner.

Source:The Daily Press 

"1982 NLCS Game 3 Cardinals @ Braves

From Classic MLB 

An interesting matchup for a championship series with two teams that were almost nothing like.

The St. Louis Cardinals as a team hit less than 100 home runs that season. George Hendrick who was a solid power hitter for a lot of his career, led the Cardinals with eighteen home runs. This was a team that would get on base by walking and slapping singles and the occasional double. And then stealing a lot of bases and stretching singles to doubles, doubles triples, scoring from first base. Playing great defense and getting great pitching. This was known as Whiteyball named after the great Cardinals manager Whitey Herzog.

The Atlanta Braves in 1982 were a power hitting team led by Dale Murphy and Bob Horner with Chris Chambliss as well. So this was a matchup between a speed team in the Cardinals both on offense and defense. Vs a power hitting team that pitched and defended well enough to win the AL West in 1982.

The New Republic: David Greenberg- 'JFK Was An Unapologetic Liberal'

Source:Twitter- David Greenberg.

Source:The New Democrat

"In the fiftieth anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the hype—the movies and books and magazine covers, the roundups and reminiscences and retrospectives—is in overdrive. How can America resist another JFK love-in? The popular adoration of Kennedy, five decades on, puzzles pundits and historians, who note, correctly, that he neither led the nation through war nor racked up a legislative record on par with that of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, or Lyndon Johnson."

From The New Republic 

“What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, “Liberal”? If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But, if by a “Liberal,” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say that I’m a “Liberal.” [Applause.]

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, “Liberal,” to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a “Liberal,” and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views – I hope for all time – 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves…

Source:CSPAN- U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) accepting the 1960 Democratic Party nomination for President, in Los Angeles, California.

From the JFK Library 

"September 14, 1960

"...if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

Did Kennedy feel the need to defend liberalism? Liberalism has been under coordinated assault on two fronts – first, on the part of "Big-Business" interests which enlisted Lewis Powell, who in 1971 wrote the Powell Memo for the conservative leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce that laid out a multifaceted blueprint to diminish Liberalism’s appeal - that would roll back many of FDR's New Deal protections for Americans, as well those from later moderate administrations  [ "HEIST: WHO STOLE THE AMERICAN DREAM FULL ENG 2011" -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34lf5... ].

The second organized front against Liberalism was aimed against liberal ideology, and came from the Neoconservative movement spearheaded by neoconservative philosopher Leo Strauss, beginning in the 1960’s, described in the BBC documentary:

The Power Of Nightmares: Part 1 Baby Its Cold Outside (2004) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTg4q...

The Power Of Nightmares: Part 2 The Phantom Victory (2004) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QTaJ...

The Power Of Nightmares: Part 3 The Shadows In The Cave (2004) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD1BR...

The following is an excerpt from the book review of "Leo Strauss and the American Right" by Shadia Drury, professor of philosophy at the University of Regina.

[ http://www.swans.com/library/art11/md... ] :

"...Their job, at first, is to wean America away from its "love affair" with liberalism. To do this they will drive a wedge between liberalism and democracy....Democracy is the rule of the people, or rule according to the will of the people or the majority." It can easily be used to suppress liberalism. By demagogic manipulation democracy, through a populist appeal, can be turned against liberalism.

The essential first task... is to produce ideology...to attack liberalism and gain power.

"Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat, and following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured." The fundamental political categories are "us" and "them." A sense of perpetual crisis and war cements the society together with absolute loyalty to the gentlemen. But the categories "us" and "them" do not stop at external enemies. The sense of crisis makes the struggle against internal enemies an even more desperate war of "us" against "them."

"Ayn Rand -  Godmother of GOP Philosophy?" - https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&ar=2...

"Ronald Reagan - a Democrat?.....Yes, seriously!" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmjrl...

"Medicare - John F. Kennedy vs [now Republican] Ronald Reagan" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z00Dq...

Continuing from Kennedy's speech:

"But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves...."

Source:U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy- at the 1960 NY State Democratic Party Convention.

From U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy

JFK in a video from 1960 when he was running for President of the United States as U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy, gave a speech at the New York State Liberal Party convention defining liberalism and what liberalism is to him. And a couple of things from this speech that partisan right-wingers who like to view him as a Conservative and so-called Progressives (who are really closeted Socialists) who are in love with the welfare state (perhaps make love to it) and based most of their politics around what the Federal Government can do for people should take from this speech. Which will be on this blog and that you can find for yourself on YouTube. 

For right-wingers he was saying why he was a Liberal and what liberalism isn’t. Which should be enough evidence for them if that is what they are interested in seeing, instead just trying to score political points off it, as well as with his administration. 

And for the let’s say today’s so-called Progressives (who are actually closeted Socialists) when you see this video about how Jack Kennedy felt about his liberalism and liberalism in general, they should know, again if they are interested in facts and not just scoring political points, from JFK while he was in Congress or as President of the United States, wasn’t as far to the Left for them when it came to economic or foreign policy. 

Democratic Socialists (to be real)  like to partially quote Jack Kennedy’s speech from 1960 on liberalism. And they only use the part where he says: “If being a Liberal is someone who cares about the welfare of others, their education, housing, health care, their economic security” (to use as examples) then he meaning JFK is a Liberal. And they use this one part of a much larger speech. And David Greenburg of The New Republic whose column today in The New Republic that you can read by clicking the link on this blog, his column was no different. 

Today’s Democratic Socialists (not Communists) use it to make the case that JFK was a Liberal. But in the way that Social Democrats see liberalism and Liberals, people who believe that it is the job of government to look after people and take care of people and that is how you secure freedom for everyone. Instead of empowering people to be able to make their own decisions and be able to take care of themselves. Which is the real definition and version of economic liberalism: using government to empower those who need it in order to be able to take care of themselves. 

I’ll just layout the other half of what Senator Kennedy said about liberalism from 1960, which again you can see by viewing the video from this blog. Senator Jack Kennedy said:

“That if being Liberal is about being soft abroad, or being Liberal is about being against local government and local control, or being Liberal is someone whose not concern with people’s tax dollars”, then I’m not a Liberal.” So there goes the social democratic version of JFK that today’s so-called Progressives or so-called Modern Liberals and how JFK was not that type of Democrat. Now here is the liberal version of Jack Kennedy and how he described his own Liberals:. 

“If a Liberal is someone who looks forward and not behind, who welcomes new ideas, cares about the welfare of others, then I proud to be a Liberal”. But most people on the Left care about the welfare of others, because most leftists have a role for government when it comes to the economy. Because they do not want a small percentage of the country controlling so much of the wealth. 

President Kennedy did not govern as someone who had a new government program or expansion of a current government program to meet most of it not all the economic and personal needs of people in the United States. He wanted government to be there to help people who needed it, but also to help them be able to help themselves. 

Senator Kennedy also went on to say in his 1960 speech about liberalism: “That being Liberal is not about being in favor of a superstate, or being in favor of government force when voluntary action will do to solve our problems in society”. 

JFK was in favor of a strong effective Federal Government to so the things that we needed it to do. Not to try to run people’s lives for them. That government should be there to help people in need be able to help themselves. And meet the national security, law enforcement, equal rights protections meaning civil rights challenges, as well as foreign policy concerns of the country. That is what liberalism was to him, as well as myself. And what liberalism actually is and not how it has been successfully stereotyped by the right-wing and use to run with by the New-Left.

University of Chicago: 'George E. Kent Lecture: Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow'

Source:University of Chicago presenting author Michelle Alexander.

Source:The New Democrat

"Michelle Alexander, highly acclaimed civil rights lawyer, advocate, Associate Professor of Law at Ohio State University, and author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, delivers the 30th Annual George E. Kent Lecture, in honor of the late George E. Kent, who was one of the earliest tenured African American professors at the University of Chicago. 

The Annual George E. Kent Lecture is organized and sponsored by the Organization of Black Students, the Black Student Law Association, and the Students for a Free Society." 

From the University of Chicago

I do not agree with everything that Professor Michelle Alexander says about the American prison system. And the broader race relations in America, but I agree with her broader premise that we incarcerate too many people in this country and educate too few. And that this overwhelmingly effects racial and ethnic minorities in this country especially the African-American community. But I believe where I may disagree with Professor Alexander is that it is not racism that is the problem in this issue.

But the lack of good schools and the high poverty in these communities leaving students in these communities without the ability to make a good living and be successful in life. And dropping out of high school which is a huge mistake on their part and they end up hanging out with the wrong people. Who also made similar mistakes as young adults and end up in a life as a criminal in and out of the criminal justice system. Instead of finishing high school and going onto college and getting themselves the skills that they need to be successful in a legal profession in life.

The so-called New Jim Crow in our society is on two fronts at least as I see it. One how it gets started with our public education system failing too many people and the African-American community probably gets hit hardest by this, but also because of the mistakes that adolescents in this community make early in life. Like not succeeding and finishing high school, having kids before they are adults themselves and then walking out on their kids and leaving them with a life of poverty as well.

The second front has to do with what happens to many Americans of all races once they are in the criminal justice system after being convicted of crimes. That leaves them with very little if any opportunity to succeed in life once they are out of prison. That our prison system has become about warehousing people instead of improving inmates lives. And empowering them with the skills to succeed with and education and giving them legitimate work experience that they can take with them to get themselves a good job outside of prison.

The failed so-called War on Drugs is also a big problem here, but it is not the only problem. We do not deal with non-violent offenders very well and come down too hard on them. And use prison as the first and in many times only option too often. But we do not do a very good job with our violent inmates that need to be in prison and get them to improve themselves and be able to see a life not just outside of crime, but especially violent crime. So they no longer feel the need or want to hurt people.

Because we lock offenders up and then release them not much if any opportunity to succeed in life on the outside, what we do is just repeat the process over and over. The what is called the revolving door of our criminal justice system. While our schools continue to fail too many people and while too many of our students fail at school. And the never-ending cycle of life of poverty, crime and prison continues to turn with no end in sight.

ABC Sports: MLB 1978- NLCS Game 4- Philadelphia Phillies @ Los Angeles Dodgers: Full Game

Source:ABC Sports- with the 1978 NLCS at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. Al Michaels, Don Drysdale, and Johnny Bench with the call of the game.

Source:The New Democrat

“1978 NLCS Game 4 – Phillies vs Dodgers @mrodsports”

From Classic Phillies TV

This was a very good matchup for an NLCS between the Phillies and Dodgers because you had a more power-hitting offensive oriented team in the Phillies, going up against a pitching and defensive oriented team in the Dodgers that also had a very good lineup, with hitters like Steve Garvey, Reggie Smith, Ron Cey, Dusty Baker and others. And I think that was the difference in this series. The teams were fairly even, but the Dodgers had more pitching and I believe a more complete team than the Phillies.

On paper anyway, I think the Dodgers were better than the New York Yankees in 1978. I think they had more offensively and had just as must pitching. But the Yankees got better pitching and clutch hitting in the 1978 World Series and that was the difference. 

You can’t really afford any of games in a World Series or a championship series. Which is what happened to the Phillies in the first two games of the NLCS losing both of them at home. And having to win three-straight at Dodger stadium to win the series.

NBC Sports: MLB 1980-World Series-Game 6-Kansas City Royals @ Philadelphia Phillies: Full Game

Source:NBC Sports- Philadelphia Phillies closer Tug McGraw.

Source:The New Democrat

“Kansas City Royals 1 at Philadelphia Phillies 4, F — With the Phillies just one tantalizing out away from a Championship, Tug McGraw got ahead on Willie Wilson, then struck him out swinging at a 1-2 fastball. McGraw threw his arms up, his teammates jumped all over each other, and the franchise had its first baseball championship.”

From MLB Vault

1980 might have been the best Kansas Royals team that they ever had. They had a very good lineup offensively, good defense, good pitching both starting and in the bullpen, Jim Fry was their manager. Unlike the 85 team that was really just George Brett and Hal McRae offensively. Steve Balboni hit a lot of home runs for them, but drove in under ninety runs, which isn’t much for a guy who hits thirty-six home runs and also hit around 240 and struck out a lot. But the 80 Royals had balance offensively, defensively and in their pitching. But couldn’t even force the Phillies into a game 7.

The 1980 Phillies were just very good everywhere. Not a great lineup with a lot of great players, but very good hitters up and down the lineup. They were very good defensively and had excellent pitching. With Steve Carlton as their ace and Tug McGraw in the bullpen. Not a team with any clear weakness’ and they were just the best team in the National League throughout the 1980 season. And a team that finally put it all together after getting to the NL Playoffs in 76 and 78, but losing both NL Championships to the Los Angeles Dodgers. So 1980 was a year that the Phillies believed they had something to prove and came through.

CBS Sports: NBA 1975- Washington Wizards @ Buffalo Braves: Bob McAdoo's 50 Points

Source:CBS Sports- the Wizards and Braves in the 1975 NBA Eastern Conference Playoffs.

Source:The New Democrat  

"Bob McAdoo puts up one of the best playoffs scoring performances ever. He scores 50 points, despite the fact that the Bullets have a four defender rotation on Big Mac. McAdoo also crashed the boards as he had 10 in the 3rd quarter, I don't know how much he could have had for the whole game. A well-deserved standing ovation from the noisy Buffalo crowd, an out-of-his-mind Oscar Robertson screaming while announcing the game and the series tied at 2-2 after McAdoo's career game. April 18, 1975." 

From Lamar Matic

Anytime there’s a choice between having the player who scored the most points in a game and the team that scored the most points in a game, especially a playoff game I would always take the team. 

When one player scores fifty points and his team loses, it generally means he was doing most of the scoring for his team in that game. And that his teammates weren’t doing much damage to the other team. Classic example of Michael Jordan vs. the Boston Celtics in the 1986 Eastern Conference Quarterfinals, where he scored sixty points in back-to-back games, but the Celtics beat the Chicago Bulls in both games and beat them badly.

That is how you defended Bob McAdoo when he was with the Buffalo Braves. You guarded him tough and you tried to stop him. But not to the point where it would free up other Braves to beat you with open shots and layups. 

Now it so happens that the Braves won this game and Big Bob was able to put the Braves on his back. But the Bullets won this series, because they had a better team, even if the Braves had the better player in the series. 

Good teams, or in the Bullets case very good teams, if not great teams generally beat teams that have a great player, if that player doesn’t have a very good supporting cast around him. 

Mometrix Academy: What is Social Liberalism

Source:Mometrix Academy- Not socialism. 

Source:FRS FreeState

"Learn more about social liberalism and its roots. Know what social liberals believe and why. Make sure you are prepared for your exam.

Mometrix Academy is the world's most comprehensive test preparation company. This channel will provide you with videos that will help you learn about many different subjects."

Source:Monetrix Academy

In this post, I’m just going to get into what social liberalism is and what it isn’t. What it really is and what it really isn’t and I’m writing this especially this weekend when I hear people who are called ‘college Liberals’ who want to control speech they disagree with on campus. And have it eliminated, or outlawed as if these people are Liberals, or even Social Liberals. Because they want to eliminate speech that may offend people they want to protect. When the fact is for anyone who understands liberalism social, or otherwise knows that one of the key elements of liberalism is free speech and the right to free assembly.

Just look at the First Amendment which is one of the most liberal things ever written. Paraphrase- Congress shall make no law that fringes on free speech in America. So when talking about liberalism social, or otherwise, or studying it, make sure you are actually talking about liberalism and not fascism. Like these politically correct speech codes by the Far-Left in America that want to eliminate speech in America that they find offensive. Because these people aren’t Liberals, but Fascists, or leftist statists. Which is a bit different.

So free speech is a big part of social liberalism, but it is certainly not the only part. And when Americans tend to think of social liberalism, they tend to think of people are pro-choice on abortion and other women’s healthcare issues. And that even the state meaning government in general should have to fund these things for women who can’t afford them in general. As well as being pro-women’s rights in general and pro-gay rights and pro-minority rights. And that none of these groups should be discriminated against at all. When the fact is these things aren’t true. Liberals, are pro-individual rights which is different.

That we are all created equal with certain basic fundamental rights that can’t be taken away from us unless we hurt other people’s freedom. And being pro-individual rights covers everything from abortion to homosexuality. But also things like marijuana. But also gambling and pornography. And again free speech which even covers an individual’s right to quite frankly be an asshole and say and do offensive things. And that everyone is treated equally under law. And are not denied things based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, nationality or sexuality.

A good way to think of social liberalism, or a Social Liberal is someone whose pro-choice. Literally pro-choice across the board regardless of the issue. As long as people aren’t hurting innocent people with the choices that they are making. That people should have the right to make their own bed in life and make their own way. But then are also responsible for sleeping in their own beds. In other words, individual freedom and responsibility. And not being able to force others to pay for one’s bad choices in life.

As for what the women in this video had to say about social liberalism, who will go nameless simply, because she didn’t give out her name and I don’t personally know her, or know of her. She nailed the definition of liberalism in the broader context. And perfectly laid out how liberalism, or how she called it social liberalism is different from libertarianism, or what is called classical liberalism. Or even democratic socialism, even though she didn’t mention that. That liberalism, is about individual liberty and individual rights. But that those rights are for everybody and that where government in is not to manage our lives for us. But to help people in need be able to get by in the short-term and help them be able to live in freedom as well. And not need to be taken care of.